View Full Version : Latest Report on "The War on Drugs"-- Epic Fail!
montanadave
06-02-11, 08:34
The Global Commission on Drug Policy (operating under the aegis of the UN) has released its report on assessing the efficacy of the "war on drugs" and its findings should come as no surprise to those who pay attention to such things.
From the Executive Summary of the report, released today and available here: http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report
"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.
Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction."
Here are the commission's recommendations:
"End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.
Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens. This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation that can accomplish these objectives and provide models for others.
Offer health and treatment services to those in need. Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada. Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures that have proven effective in reducing transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections as well as fatal overdoses. Respect the human rights of people who use drugs. Abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment – such as forced detention, forced labor, and physical or psychological abuse – that contravene human rights standards and norms or that remove the right to self-determination.
Apply much the same principles and policies stated above to people involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets, such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers. Many are themselves victims of violence and intimidation or are drug dependent. Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of these people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations. There appears to be almost no limit to the number of people willing to engage in such activities to better their lives, provide for their families, or otherwise escape poverty. Drug control resources are better directed elsewhere.
Invest in activities that can both prevent young people from taking drugs in the first place and also prevent those who do use drugs from developing more serious problems. Eschew simplistic ‘just say no’ messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in favor of educational efforts grounded in credible information and prevention programs that focus on social skills and peer influences. The most successful prevention efforts may be those targeted at specific at-risk groups.
Focus repressive actions on violent criminal organizations, but do so in ways that undermine their power and reach while prioritizing the reduction of violence and intimidation. Law enforcement efforts should focus not on reducing drug markets per se but rather on reducing their harms to individuals, communities and national security.
Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime. Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. Review the scheduling of drugs that has resulted in obvious anomalies like the flawed categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and MDMA. Ensure that the international conventions are interpreted and/or revised to accommodate robust experimentation with harm reduction, decriminalization and legal regulatory policies.
Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now."
OK, you finally won me over. Let's legalize the drugs. After all, it must be the right thing to do for the US if the UN recommends it. I'm sure that the numbers of recipients in our social safety nets (i.e. Medicaid, SSI-D, public housing, food stamps, etc.) will surely decrease if there was easily available, crack, meth, and heroin. After all, it has "worked" in Europe, so it must work in the US.
Now back to reality.
Littlelebowski
06-02-11, 11:30
OK, you finally won me over. Let's legalize the drugs. After all, it must be the right thing to do for the US if the UN recommends it. I'm sure that the numbers of recipients in our social safety nets (i.e. Medicaid, SSI-D, public housing, food stamps, etc.) will surely decrease if there was easily available, crack, meth, and heroin. After all, it has "worked" in Europe, so it must work in the US.
Now back to reality.
Do you have any idea how much crime comes about due the high profit margin on illegal drugs? See the Mexican border....
Your argument could just as easily be applied to alcohol.
The problems with those on the dole are cultural, not drug related. See the "great society" and its role in creating our generations of welfare recipients.
It's been debated quite a few times here on M4C and I don't think this will change anyone's minds but I do appreciate you posting the article and information.
Me personally, I'm all for freedom and against prohibition.
Thomas M-4
06-02-11, 11:52
Do you have any idea how much crime comes about due the high profit margin on illegal drugs? See the Mexican border....
Your argument could just as easily be applied to alcohol.
The problems with those on the dole are cultural, not drug related. See the "great society" and its role in creating our generations of welfare recipients.
This ^ The cartels tell a government officials he/she has 2 choices take $300K in bribe money or a bullet to the head and it doesn't matter to them which they choose. :sarcastic: Choices,Choices hmm witch to pick. There is probably more tunnels under the CONUS /Mexican border than there is on the Gaza Strip. Hell they are spending millions on made in the jungle submarines for one way trips.
Same thing was going on during prohibition.
This ^ The cartels tell a government officials he/she has 2 choices take $300K in bribe money or a bullet to the head and it doesn't matter to them which they choose. :sarcastic:
Isn't that the silver or lead philosophy, you get one or the other.
The problems with those on the dole are cultural, not drug relatedI have said this for some time now.Culture is more important than the laws themselves. Laws are just words on paper, we as a culture have to choose to obey them for them to work. It is culturally acceptable to go five miles over so we all do it. It is not culturally acceptable to shoot people for letting their dogs crap in your yard so very few people do it.
Do you have any idea how much crime comes about due the high profit margin on illegal drugs? See the Mexican border....
Your argument could just as easily be applied to alcohol.
The problems with those on the dole are cultural, not drug related. See the "great society" and its role in creating our generations of welfare recipients.
Not really. Although addictive and frequently abused, alcohol has got nothing on meth, heroin, crack, and most commonly abused prescription drugs. The vast majority of American adults socially drink alcohol and lead productive lives without falling into the social safety nets. As an emergency physician who is at the bottom of that net, I've not seen or heard of one person, not a single one, who has managed to "socially" use on of these big three and maintain a self-sufficient existence. Instead my day is dominated fixing problems created by these drugs at a huge cost to the tax payer and citizens who pay higher premiums due to cost sharing. Even the top earners (celebrities, athletes, etc.) spiral out of control and end up being social recipients.
I'll illustrate with a little experiment:
Take 10 people and have them drink 2 standard servings of alcohol each weekend night for a month. Then, take a different 10 people and have them take a hit of meth, heroin, or crack each weekend night for a month. At the end of the month, let both groups go about their "business" and see which group goes on to live productive lives. Finally, image that all of the people in both groups are teenagers. Don't get me wrong, there is no data behind my experiment, just a lot of practical experience and common sense.
So, if you want a majority of Americans to vote for drug legalization, you must first eliminate of all of the publicly funded social safety nets so that those of us who work are not supporting all those living in a haze. Then, you have to demonstrate a workable mechanism to keep these drugs out of the hands of kids so that we do not create even bigger future generations of recipients. Good luck.
A few more quick question for all of my legalization colleagues. Are you assuming that the black market drug trade will be killed by legalized drugs that are provided for free? If they are free, who will provide them to the masses - the government? Will the potency and addictive content be regulated by the government like nicotine in cigarettes and alcohol? Will the drugs be taxed by the government?
These questions should all have specific answers before you assume that you will kill the drug trade with legalization.
Not really. Although addictive and frequently abused, alcohol has got nothing on meth, heroin, crack, and most commonly abused prescription drugs. The vast majority of American adults socially drink alcohol and lead productive lives without falling into the social safety nets. As an emergency physician who is at the bottom of that net, I've not seen or heard of one person, not a single one, who has managed to "socially" use on of these big three and maintain a self-sufficient existence. Even the top earners (celebrities, athletes, etc.) spiral out of control and wind up being social recipients.
I'll illustrate with a little experiment:
Take 10 people and have them drink 2 standard servings of alcohol each weekend night for a month. Then, take a different 10 people and have them take a hit of meth, heroin, or crack each weekend night for a month. At the end of the month, let both groups go about their "business" and see which group goes on to live productive lives. Finally, image that all of the people in both groups are teenagers. Don't get me wrong, there is no data behind my experiment, jut a lot of practical experience and common sense.
So, if you want a majority of Americans to vote for drug legalization, you must first get ride of all of the publicly funded social safety nets so that those of us who work are not supporting all those living in a haze. Then, you have to demonstrate a workable mechanism to keep these drugs out of the hands of kids so that we do not create even bigger future generations of recipients. Good luck.
I like this
Im all for the legalization of marijuana, but not meth or other drugs like that. Meth is some really nasty shit and makes people ****ing crazy! If a steady suplu of cheap legal meth were available, I believe there would be a HUGE spike in crime.
I hate dealing with tweakers at work.
Im all for the legalization of marijuana, but not meth or other drugs like that. Meth is some really nasty shit and makes people ****ing crazy! If a steady suplu of cheap legal meth were available, I believe there would be a HUGE spike in crime.
I hate dealing with tweakers at work.
You Lie! We all know that meth users and crack heads are non-violent victims of society's war on drugs. Drug use is a victimless crime. They never beat their spouses or forget to feed the baby...;)
Littlelebowski
06-02-11, 17:41
I am pretty much only for the legalization of pot.
Do you guys think we are winning or holding a line in the war on drugs? Do you think that our citizens suffer collateral damage as a result?
Lanesmith, what was Mexico's drug and violence like before Calderon took over and declared militarized war on drugs? Is Mexico better off now?
Watching helicopters scour for marijuana crops and also lower agents to destroy them is not only a blatant waste of resources but flat out laughable. Like there is some sort of emergency involved somewhere, this beyond the enabling of the beasts that make a living delivering it to the US from Mexico.
As stated I also hope they focus on the coke, crack and heroin. And maybe the growing prescription pill problem, which is also now destroying families at a substantial rate.
Belmont31R
06-02-11, 20:25
Not really. Although addictive and frequently abused, alcohol has got nothing on meth, heroin, crack, and most commonly abused prescription drugs. The vast majority of American adults socially drink alcohol and lead productive lives without falling into the social safety nets. As an emergency physician who is at the bottom of that net, I've not seen or heard of one person, not a single one, who has managed to "socially" use on of these big three and maintain a self-sufficient existence. Instead my day is dominated fixing problems created by these drugs at a huge cost to the tax payer and citizens who pay higher premiums due to cost sharing. Even the top earners (celebrities, athletes, etc.) spiral out of control and end up being social recipients.
I'll illustrate with a little experiment:
Take 10 people and have them drink 2 standard servings of alcohol each weekend night for a month. Then, take a different 10 people and have them take a hit of meth, heroin, or crack each weekend night for a month. At the end of the month, let both groups go about their "business" and see which group goes on to live productive lives. Finally, image that all of the people in both groups are teenagers. Don't get me wrong, there is no data behind my experiment, just a lot of practical experience and common sense.
So, if you want a majority of Americans to vote for drug legalization, you must first eliminate of all of the publicly funded social safety nets so that those of us who work are not supporting all those living in a haze. Then, you have to demonstrate a workable mechanism to keep these drugs out of the hands of kids so that we do not create even bigger future generations of recipients. Good luck.
And yet the billions we spend, the amount of people we put in jail, and the freedoms we have lost due to the WOD have not made a significant impact in decades.
Here you go straight from the deciders of what people do:
Percent of 12th graders who have smoked pot in 1995: 41%
Percent of 12th graders who have smoked pot in 2008: 42%
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
So almost HALF the population has smoked pot by at least 12th grade.
But lets put people in jail for it, ruin the rest of their lives, and completely ignore its medicinal benefits to people because the gov is all knowing, drugs are an excuse to erode rights and give itself powers, and we can create organize crime groups who's yearly profits are in the billions.
But we can let people drink booze because prohibition of that failed when people had enough sense to say enough is enough, and we're making the problem worse.
Also why did it require a Constituional amendment to ban booze but pot is just a law?
42 percent of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old crash fatalities were alcohol-related.
http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/alcohol-related-fatality-percentages.html
But lets put people in jail for pot because the world will end if we don't keep jailing people for a joint...
The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/pot_driving.htm
I am pretty much only for the legalization of pot.
Do you guys think we are winning or holding a line in the war on drugs? Do you think that our citizens suffer collateral damage as a result?
Lanesmith, what was Mexico's drug and violence like before Calderon took over and declared militarized war on drugs? Is Mexico better off now?
First, I don't think that we should use our neighbors as an example of how to run our country, or follow the suggestions of the UN's lapdog when it comes to our drug policy. Second, I think that we all can agree that no one should serve hard time for possession of pot or even selling to other adults (selling to kids and trafficking large amounts is another matter). However, my understanding of Montanadave's article is that we should end the war on drugs meaning all drugs - even crack, heroin, and meth.
As for Mexico, my limited understanding is that the current violence is a result of decades of corruption and an attempt to turn around a deteriorating society. It's not like Mexico went from Utopia to chaos simply because of the drug crackdown. Mexico was facing a stagnant economy, chronically high unemployment, and much lower standard of living in part because a significant percentage of its population spent their time intoxicated/high. The Mexican society was slowly crumbling under the tremendous burden of caring for these people, and that is why there has been a flood if illegal immigrants coming to America from Mexico for the past 60+ years. I know that progressives like to believe that the current violence in Mexico is due to America forcing a crackdown by Calderon, but the situation on the ground in Mexico was ugly long before the drug crackdown.
Although the current situation in Mexico is painful to watch, it is the price you pay when your society has to dig out of such a deep hole. In the long run, I believe that Mexico will be better off fighting this war rather than allow the slow deterioration that is was facing. On the other hand, if you want New York City to look like Mexico city, and Detroit to look like Mogadishu, just legalize the hard drugs a wait about 10 or 15 years.
Obvious problem with this report, as already mentioned above, is bunching all drugs of abuse together. I think most reasonable folks would agree that pot should be legal; meth and coke, on the other hand...
People's attitudes are almost predictable based on how often/how close they have to deal with drug abusers. I almost fully agree with lanesmith, having spent nine years in a large public hospital and having taken care of countless drug abusers. My only disagreement is in regards to alcohol; I think it is a bigger problem than we say it is. Wanna make drugs legal - fine, just don't make me a) be obligated to take care of them and b) be obligated to pay for that care out of my taxes.
Somehow, we forget that we've had legalized drug treatment programs for a while - methadone maintenance programs, anyone?
I'd say that 50% of the time those recipients had an unscheduled drug test, such as during ED or inpatient work-up, we'd detect both methadone and opiates; so much for success.
Those of you who would like to keep hard drugs illegal. Why? Do you think that the efforts now with them being illegal have done anything to reduce use? Evidence? Have the billions of dollars spent to combat drugs reduced use? Had a positive effect?
(and no, I am not in favor for my own personal use -- I am a tea-totaler [and not even tea])
Littlelebowski
06-02-11, 21:16
Lanesmith, once again I ask you to look at violence in Mexico before Calderon and I also ask you if our current efforts in the WOD are bearing fruit. Right here and now. Take a moment to do some research. Take a day. Whatever.
And yet the billions we spend, the amount of people we put in jail, and the freedoms we have lost due to the WOD have not made a significant impact in decades.
Here you go straight from the deciders of what people do:
Percent of 12th graders who have smoked pot in 1995: 41%
Percent of 12th graders who have smoked pot in 2008: 42%
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
So almost HALF the population has smoked pot by at least 12th grade.
But lets put people in jail for it, ruin the rest of their lives, and completely ignore its medicinal benefits to people because the gov is all knowing, drugs are an excuse to erode rights and give itself powers, and we can create organize crime groups who's yearly profits are in the billions.
But we can let people drink booze because prohibition of that failed when people had enough sense to say enough is enough, and we're making the problem worse.
Also why did it require a Constituional amendment to ban booze but pot is just a law?
42 percent of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old crash fatalities were alcohol-related.
http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/alcohol-related-fatality-percentages.html
But lets put people in jail for pot because the world will end if we don't keep jailing people for a joint...
The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/pot_driving.htm
Belmont, do you really think that the prisons are full of people incarcerated for using or even selling small amounts of pot? If so, think again. Crack, heroin, and meth are the big players and the topic of the OP's article.
Those of you who would like to keep hard drugs illegal. Why? Do you think that the efforts now with them being illegal have done anything to reduce use? Evidence? Have the billions of dollars spent to combat drugs reduced use? Had a positive effect?
(and no, I am not in favor for my own personal use -- I am a tea-totaler [and not even tea])
No, there is no evidence as we don't have a control group to compare outcomes. Comparing Europe or Mexico to US is methodologically wrong.
Additionally, drug use is a symptom, not disease; societal, economic and cultural problems are the core problem. Current war on drugs is largely directed at the symptom, not disease. Symptom-driven efforts are rarely fully efficacious.
As such, as I said above, I don't care as much if they are legal as I care that, with legalization, the burden of war is not shifted towards burden of healthcare which is already substantial. I don't want to simplify this too much, and dichotomous approach is rarely a good one. These people do need our help in quitting, in finding a way of living without drugs, but at some point I want to say "enough is enough". Frankly, on individual level, I have said it more than once.
ForTehNguyen
06-02-11, 21:32
America always gets more of whatever it fights its social wars on. War on Drugs, got more drug use. War on Alcohol, got more alcohol use. War on Poverty, more poverty.
Those who are against the the legalization of drugs have to also be against alcohol and tobacco for the argument to be consistent. Treating drug use, a disease, as a criminal offense causes all kinds of unintended consequences. Look at how much tobacco use has dropped over the past 20 years, and we accomplished that without throwing smokers in jail. It was done through education. The illegal drugs need to be approached like this as well.
When the laws of legislating morality collide with the laws of supply and demand there is an explosion of unintended consequences.
Those who are against the the legalization of drugs have to also be against alcohol and tobacco for the argument to be consistent.
Actually, I am quite consistent there - I don't care if it is legal or not, I don't want society do be served with a medical bill.
I agree on education, although, in my experience, the roots of tobacco abuse are different than those of alcohol and drug abuse.
Lanesmith, once again I ask you to look at violence in Mexico before Calderon and I also ask you if our current efforts in the WOD are bearing fruit. Right here and now. Take a moment to do some research. Take a day. Whatever.
Actually, the use of cocaine among young adults over the past 6-10 years has declined. Reported pot use among school age kids is also declining over the past 5-6 years. For cocaine, there was a steady decline from 1970 to the early 1990's. It then bounced back up from around 1988 to 2001 when crack hit the streets. It has since slowely trended down for the past 6-8 years. Does this mean that we are winning the WOD, or that it is being fought efficiently? No. I fear that some of the decline in cocaine use may be people switching to meth. A similar phenomenon is likely happening with heroin as opiate addicts switch to prescription drugs. I expect that drug use will continue to be flat or maybe increase as America continues to become an entitlement society because we remove the harmful consequences of drug use.
Does stagnant or even increasing drug rates mean that legalization of all drugs is the answer? Show me the research where a major industrial power has solved its poverty and debt problems by legalizing all drugs.
I say the best way to make significant grounds in the drug war is to keep them illegal and remove all social safety nets for drug abusers. That's right - you need public housing, Medicaid, or food stamps? Piss in this cup. If it comes back positive - starve.
Either you support prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating substances or you don't it's, really simple - this includes alcoholic beverages.
Personally I'm not a prohibitionist, and believe people have a right to tattoo "**** you" on their forehead if they so choose or shoot up heroin if they're so inclined to do so. :/
Belmont, do you really think that the prisons are full of people incarcerated for using or even selling small amounts of pot? If so, think again. Crack, heroin, and meth are the big players and the topic of the OP's article.
Why does it matter? It is billions of dollars flushed down the toilet with nothing to show for it but violence and addicts in either case.
As such, as I said above, I don't care as much if they are legal as I care that, with legalization, the burden of war is not shifted towards burden of healthcare which is already substantial.
The issue of healthcare is irrelevant to the question of legalization.
These people are ALREADY sucking the teat of healthcare in the US with the drugs being illegal. The WoD has failed to stop drug use or even to really diminish it. (I firmly believe drug use would go down if drugs were legal btw -- without the money in the market, you would have a lot less people pushing the product -- drugs are already very plentiful and the WoD has done nothing to reduce the availability of drugs and the argument can be made that it has made them more plentiful)
I say the best way to make significant grounds in the drug war is to keep them illegal and remove all social safety nets for drug abusers. That's right - you need public housing, Medicaid, or food stamps? Piss in this cup. If it comes back positive - starve.
While I agree that we need to do that, it would not diminish drug use. Too much money in the drug market for that too happen. Those who make the money will work hard to find new customers. Legalization gets the pushers out of the market. Legalization would probably result in fewer addicts and people using drugs heavily.
While I agree that we need to do that, it would not diminish drug use. Too much money in the drug market for that too happen. Those who make the money will work hard to find new customers. Legalization gets the pushers out of the market. Legalization would probably result in fewer addicts and people using drugs heavily.
Who is going to provide these legal drugs under your system? The government? Will they be taxed like alcohol and tobacco? Will there content be regulated to prevent one manufacturer from making their drug to addictive?
America always gets more of whatever it fights its social wars on. War on Drugs, got more drug use. War on Alcohol, got more alcohol use. War on Poverty, more poverty.
Those who are against the the legalization of drugs have to also be against alcohol and tobacco for the argument to be consistent. Treating drug use, a disease, as a criminal offense causes all kinds of unintended consequences. Look at how much tobacco use has dropped over the past 20 years, and we accomplished that without throwing smokers in jail. It was done through education. The illegal drugs need to be approached like this as well.
When the laws of legislating morality collide with the laws of supply and demand there is an explosion of unintended consequences.
Actually, tobacco use did not start to decline until the government limited advertising, nicotine content, etc. It is probably one of the BEST example of laws effectively reducing drugs. Thank you.
Actually, tobacco use did not start to decline until the government limited advertising, nicotine content, etc. It is probably one of the BEST example of laws effectively reducing drugs. Thank you.
Tobacco use has gone down due to societal pressure. Smoking stinks. That became the new norm.
Limiting advertising etc is also a "reasonable" way to help reduce it, but societal pressure is the main mover of reductions in smoking, as far as I can tell.
Who is going to provide these legal drugs under your system? The government? Will they be taxed like alcohol and tobacco? Will there content be regulated to prevent one manufacturer from making their drug to addictive?
Legal companies who pay taxes the same as everyone else. But the big money won't be there (cost is proportional to risk -- the higher the risk, the higher the cost of product) for the people who push drugs now in totally immoral and unethical ways won't be there.
For example, during Prohibition, you had gangs mowing each other down to control the trade. Once Prohibition was repealed, the lucrative trade disappeared and you could easily buy your booze at the local "packy" (or in some states in state liquor stores). The package stores were not out mowing each other down to get customers nor were they trying to push alcohol everywhere. Today it is much worse now than it was then due to drug Prohibition and now you have people out trying to get kids in schools hooked (illicitly), etc. When legalized, that aspect will go away. You won't have all sorts of unsavory characters in it because the money won't be in it.
I don't see how you jumped to the government providing them.
Belmont31R
06-03-11, 00:17
Tobacco use has gone down due to societal pressure. Smoking stinks. That became the new norm.
Limiting advertising etc is also a "reasonable" way to help reduce it, but societal pressure is the main mover of reductions in smoking, as far as I can tell.
A pack of cigarettes is over 10 dollars in some places.
But I don't want the gov deciding what people should and shouldnt do, and then tax it into oblivion.
A pack of cigarettes is over 10 dollars in some places.
But I don't want the gov deciding what people should and shouldnt do, and then tax it into oblivion.
I agree. But smoking started going down way before prices were jacked up like they are now. That is a pretty recent phenomenon.
Interesting to read news articles about cigarette smuggling. Most prevalent in those areas with higher tobacco taxes.
While I agree that we need to do that, it would not diminish drug use. Too much money in the drug market for that too happen. Those who make the money will work hard to find new customers. Legalization gets the pushers out of the market. Legalization would probably result in fewer addicts and people using drugs heavily.
No. Legalization would unleash the power of industry to create more powerful drugs and more addicts to drive profits. Competition in the market place would require that drug manufacturers become more "efficient" at bringing their product to market. This means more users, not less.
Unless of course you expect the government to regulate and control the drugs. That would be great - vote for me and I'll give you free smack. Strict government regulation / taxation would also undercut your argument that legalization eliminates the black market.
No. Legalization would unleash the power of industry to create more powerful drugs and more addicts to drive profits. Competition in the market place would require that drug manufacturers become more "efficient" at bringing their product to market. This means more users, not less.
And did this happen to a great extent with alcohol?
There has been some minor "power of industry" thing but all in all, it has not happened.
I think that what you claim would not happen to a huge extent. Today there is money in the drug market due to the risk inherent in it. Take away the risk and you take away the big money, which means that most players will leave the market. You won't be having huge industrial concerns stepping in unless a proven market can already be shown to exist.
And there will be societal pressure as well. Which big company wants to soil their reputation with drugs?
Unless of course you expect the government to regulate and control the drugs. That would be great - vote for me and I'll give you free smack. Strict government regulation would also undercut your argument that legalization eliminates the black market.
There would probably be some sort of regulation. How much would work and not work is something that would have to be figured out. Like taxing cigarettes. You did not get a lot of black market cigarettes until they started piling on taxes that made cigarettes significantly more expensive. Alcohol is another example. You don't have a huge black market on alcohol now because the government taxation and regulation is not overly burdensome.
And did this happen to a great extent with alcohol?
There has been some minor "power of industry" thing but all in all, it has not happened.
I think that what you claim would not happen to a huge extent. Today there is money in the drug market due to the risk inherent in it. Take away the risk and you take away the big money, which means that most players will leave the market. You won't be having huge industrial concerns stepping in unless a proven market can already be shown to exist.
And there will be societal pressure as well. Which big company wants to soil their reputation with drugs?
There would probably be some sort of regulation. How much would work and not work is something that would have to be figured out. Like taxing cigarettes. You did not get a lot of black market cigarettes until they started piling on taxes that made cigarettes significantly more expensive. Alcohol is another example. You don't have a huge black market on alcohol now because the government taxation and regulation is not overly burdensome.
Yes. It has happened with alcohol. Alcohol consumption among teenagers inparticular has increased and the power of corporate advertising plays a role.
However, this thread is about legalization of hard drugs. Not alcohol. Trying to compare the two is not valid. Trying to extrapolate the effects of drug legalization to the end of Prohibition is not valid - it happened 80 years ago.
It is great that you do not "think" that Big Pharma or GovCo pushing hard drugs would not lead to more users and greater cost to society. However, the recurring comparison to alcohol and tobacco to support your belief is what undermines my confidence in your teams logic.
montanadave
06-03-11, 07:55
However, this thread is about legalization of hard drugs.
I started the thread to draw attention to the report of drug policy linked in the OP.
Stating the thread is about legalization of hard drugs is a rather narrow interpretation of study's author's recommendations. The main thrust is harm reduction, whether that be by decriminalizing those who use drugs but do no harm to others or exploring alternative methods of regulation which reduce the power of organized crime and the violence associated with it, particularly with respect to cannabis.
An additional recommendation promotes more realistic regulatory policies based an actual, rather than perceived, risk of using various drugs. Several comments in this thread fail to reflect the risk values assigned to different drugs in the policy report, wherein heroin and cocaine pose the greatest risk but cannabis is ranked below both alcohol and nicotine.
The issue of healthcare is irrelevant to the question of legalization.
These people are ALREADY sucking the teat of healthcare in the US with the drugs being illegal. The WoD has failed to stop drug use or even to really diminish it. (I firmly believe drug use would go down if drugs were legal btw -- without the money in the market, you would have a lot less people pushing the product -- drugs are already very plentiful and the WoD has done nothing to reduce the availability of drugs and the argument can be made that it has made them more plentiful)
The issue of healthcare would become very relevant if your belief (which is unsubstantiated by data btw) that drug use would go down with legalization turns out wrong. I already mentioned that we have had legal drug use programs - methadone maintenance. Any of you who want drugs legalized have first-hand experience with those, seen much positive impact, advocate for or against on basis of some data?
Prevalence of tobacco smoking, which is perfectly legal, is at 9 to 25% range nationally, leading to staggering healthcare costs. You may diminish economic stimulus for drug use propagation by making them legal, but easy access combined with high addictive potential may turn it in healthcare nightmare.
Yes. It has happened with alcohol. Alcohol consumption among teenagers inparticular has increased and the power of corporate advertising plays a role.
evidence?
However, this thread is about legalization of hard drugs. Not alcohol. Trying to compare the two is not valid. Trying to extrapolate the effects of drug legalization to the end of Prohibition is not valid - it happened 80 years ago.
it is perfectly valid. Same market forces, same human nature. Same "solution", prohibition, leading to the same problems of violence, resources wasted, etc.
It is great that you do not "think" that Big Pharma or GovCo pushing hard drugs would not lead to more users and greater cost to society.
Big Pharma or the govt would not be pushing hard drugs. Too much collateral damage to their businesses/images.
However, the recurring comparison to alcohol and tobacco to support your belief is what undermines my confidence in your teams logic.
The logic is sound. What is not sound is your belief that everything is different now even though it all looks the same, and that keep doing more of the same will somehow have different effects and results than it does now.
The issue of healthcare would become very relevant if your belief (which is unsubstantiated by data btw) that drug use would go down with legalization turns out wrong. I already mentioned that we have had legal drug use programs - methadone maintenance. Any of you who want drugs legalized have first-hand experience with those, seen much positive impact, advocate for or against on basis of some data?
Prevalence of tobacco smoking, which is perfectly legal, is at 9 to 25% range nationally, leading to staggering healthcare costs. You may diminish economic stimulus for drug use propagation by making them legal, but easy access combined with high addictive potential may turn it in healthcare nightmare.
Anyone who wants drugs now can get them easily and freely. Massive moneyed interests push drugs very hard to our youth and other segments of society. Effects on healthcare are already here. The healthcare issue is a non-issue in terms of legalization due to this. Drugs are already out there, plentiful, for anyone who wants them.
Anyone who wants drugs now can get them easily and freely. Massive moneyed interests push drugs very hard to our youth and other segments of society. Effects on healthcare are already here. The healthcare issue is a non-issue in terms of legalization due to this. Drugs are already out there, plentiful, for anyone who wants them.
Your argument is based on premise that drug legalization will not increase prevalence of their use, so you want them legally available - at reduced cost.
Tobacco is easily and legally available at a fraction of drug's cost. The prevalence of tobacco abuse dwarfs prevalence of drug abuse - in my opinion, at least partly due to low cost and availability on every corner. I say you have no evidence to suggest that increased use will not happen with legal drugs.
For the third and a last time, I will make a reference to a longstanding program of legally available drug - methadone. I like how me mentioning this above gets ignored. Methadone maintenance has been going on since at least early 90s; I was personally involved with its recipients in late 90s. For proponents of hard drug legalization, here is your chance to throw 20 years worth of legal hard drug use data into your opponents to prove your point. I am patiently waiting.
Your argument is based on premise that drug legalization will not increase prevalence of their use, so you want them legally available - at reduced cost.
Tobacco is easily and legally available at a fraction of drug's cost. The prevalence of tobacco abuse dwarfs prevalence of drug abuse - in my opinion, at least partly due to low cost and availability on every corner.
Uhm, tobacco use has been going down for years. Despite the legal status and readily available cigarettes on every street corner, and the design of some cigarettes to make them more addictive. It (cigarette usage) is almost 1/2 of what it was 45 years ago.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm
And cigarettes are already a huge industry. There is no hard or soft drug legal industry to step in and and pick up the slack and which investors are going to back selling hard drugs to kids or adults for that matter? Winner of a PR move there and a great business plan to sell on wall street :rolleyes:
I say you have no evidence to suggest that increased use will not happen with legal drugs.
Evidence of tobacco, other countries, prohibition, etc. And simple logic.
For the third and a last time, I will make a reference to a longstanding program of legally available drug - methadone. I like how me mentioning this above gets ignored. Methadone maintenance has been going on since at least early 90s; I was personally involved with its recipients in late 90s. For proponents of hard drug legalization, here is your chance to throw 20 years worth of legal hard drug use data into your opponents to prove your point. I am patiently waiting.
The relevance of methadone maintenance I fail to see. That is a prescription only special program for already hard addicts, and bears little resemblance to a legal drug market.
Uhm, tobacco use has been going down for years. Despite the legal status and readily available cigarettes on every street corner, and the design of some cigarettes to make them more addictive. It (cigarette usage) is almost 1/2 of what it was 45 years ago.
.
I agree that trend has been going down steady. The absolute prevalence of use is anywhere 10 to 100 times more than any single drug use, in my opinion, largely due to availability.
The relevance of methadone maintenance I fail to see. That is a prescription only special program for already hard addicts, and bears little resemblance to a legal drug market.
It is a legal drug use program that was designed to minimize prevalence of opiate addiction and attendant costs to society. As far as I know, it failed on both accounts, which makes me skeptical whether any other legal drug use program, prescription or not, will have any different outcome.
Simple, if you want drugs to be illegal then have an Amendment to the Constitution written, voted in and enacted. If not stay out of people's personal lives as long as it's not hurting anyone else physically, financially, etc.
We lead the world in drug use and spend the most money fighting it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/health/webmd/main4222322.shtml What's the defiinition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Besides, most of these drugs were legal at one point in time in American history and we didn't devolve into a nation of junkies then either. Freedom is scary.
I agree that trend has been going down steady. The absolute prevalence of use is anywhere 10 to 100 times more than any single drug use, in my opinion, largely due to availability.
and not societal norms of smoking that go back 100s of years?
I think your stretching it here.
It is a legal drug use program that was designed to minimize prevalence of opiate addiction and attendant costs to society. As far as I know, it failed on both accounts, which makes me skeptical whether any other legal drug use program, prescription or not, will have any different outcome.
It has nothing to do with legalization. It is a program to help hard core addicts.
Besides, most of these drugs were legal at one point in time in American history and we didn't devolve into a nation of junkies then either. Freedom is scary.
This is important. The problems of use of these drugs seems to have gotten worse after they were made illegal.
Again, the current state of the drugs being illegal has gotten us no where except a big waste of money and a ton of violence and death from people who try hard to control the black market.
Over the long haul, legalization will probably save money and lives.
Why should we keep on doing the same thing we have been when we KNOW it does not work.
No one can prove one way or another what will happen if they were legalized. Good old law of unintended consequences. However, the theory is on the side of legalization and the circumstantial evidence is as well. There are lots of studies and think tank reports and white papers and websites dedicated to this who can present it better than I can. Have at it if you want to get into the nitty gritty.
This is a great read on the WOD http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf.
According to this report we'd also save $41,000,000,000 a year ending the WOD http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf
I also find it rather humorous that our last 3 presidents are admitted illegal drug users and yet somehow insist that you shouldn't partake in the same activity.
According to this report we'd also save $41,000,000,000 a year ending the WOD...
Or as Obama calls it, "Chump Change."
Why does it matter? It is billions of dollars flushed down the toilet with nothing to show for it but violence and addicts in either case.
That is not entirely true. You are forgetting about all of the jobs that have resulted, from the need for additional officers to corrections to the people who make the equipment used by cops, prisons, and parole officers. Don't forget about the paper that all of the "paper work" is on that was purchased with that money. There is a lot more to the industry than you think. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. With exception of the money we have sent to other countries like Mexico, it has not been a complete waste.
That is not entirely true. You are forgetting about all of the jobs that have resulted, from the need for additional officers to corrections to the people who make the equipment used by cops, prisons, and parole officers. Don't forget about the paper that all of the "paper work" is on that was purchased with that money. There is a lot more to the industry than you think. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. With exception of the money we have sent to other countries like Mexico, it has not been a complete waste.
I get what you are saying, but you are assuming the money would not have been spent on other items like equipment and paper etc for use in other governmental endeavors...
That is not entirely true. You are forgetting about all of the jobs that have resulted, from the need for additional officers to corrections to the people who make the equipment used by cops, prisons, and parole officers. Don't forget about the paper that all of the "paper work" is on that was purchased with that money. There is a lot more to the industry than you think. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. With exception of the money we have sent to other countries like Mexico, it has not been a complete waste.
So stealing money at gun point, don't pay your taxes and see what happens, from those who are already being productive members of society to create more jobs for those who need them and to expand government control over people's lives is ethical? We make more things illegal, victimless crimes, by the day in order to create revenue and so that the government can "create more jobs" and have people enforce those laws.
I mean this with all due respect to you personally, your profession and your opinion. Simply trying to elevate the debate to a higher level.
I get what you are saying, but you are assuming the money would not have been spent on other items like equipment and paper etc for use in other governmental endeavors...
I agree the money would have been spent elsewhere, just pointing out it is an industry all its own.
I agree the money would have been spent elsewhere, just pointing out it is an industry all its own.
Along with the billions of dollars the private prison system makes off of "drug offenders". They lobby Congress constantly to keep drug laws and add more every year so that they can have more "customers". The corporation's profits and stock value are directly related to how many more laws they can get enacted and how many more people they can keep locked up in a "free society". Considering we have the highest percentage of people in the world incarcerated I'd say they're doing a bang up job, we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2797/
A recent report from the Montana-based Institute on Money in State Politics reveals that during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, private prison companies, directors, executives and lobbyists gave $3.3 million to candidates and state political parties across 44 states.
Along with the billions of dollars the private prison system makes off of "drug offenders". They lobby Congress constantly to keep drug laws and add more every year so that they can have more "customers". The corporation's profits and stock value are directly related to how many more laws they can get enacted and how many more people they can keep locked up in a "free society". Considering we have the highest percentage of people in the world incarcerated I'd say they're doing a bang up job, we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2797/
I am all for letting addicts die in a ditch and letting DOT pick them up with the dead deer
Thomas M-4
06-03-11, 15:56
I don't see how legalizing some illegal drugs Is going to increase the availability of it [ I am not really in favor of legalizing all of them].
You go to practically any city of any size and there is 5 hood rates swarming you at the gas station when all you are doing is getting 20 oz MountainDew and some gas:rolleyes: BTW never heard of the dope man checking ID.
Its giving huge amounts of money to criminals. Does anybody really think that if the Mexican Government wins against the cartels that the drugs will go a way? With that much money to be made there will always be some one to cash in on it.
Simple, if you want drugs to be illegal then have an Amendment to the Constitution written, voted in and enacted. If not stay out of people's personal lives as long as it's not hurting anyone else physically, financially, etc.
That's really necessary. Most drug convictions are for violation of local ordnances or state law. The federal laws mostly deal with interstate trafficing or transportation across the US border (with some exceptions). It is perfectly appropriate for states and cities to regulate activities within their borders. If you don't like them, exercise your rights at the ballot.
We lead the world in drug use and spend the most money fighting it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/health/webmd/main4222322.shtml What's the defiinition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Most of us consider it insane to legalize hard drugs in a country that has a significant impoverished population and a growing nanny-state mentality.
Besides, most of these drugs were legal at one point in time in American history and we didn't devolve into a nation of junkies then either. Freedom is scary.
No, they were not. Of the big three, heroin is the oldest but it's absolute prevalence has only been significant for 30 years. Crack hit it's peak in the 90's, and meth has been growing over the past 10 years.
YVK's comments on prevalence are accurate and the current epidemic of prescription drug abuse illustrates his point and is probably the best example of what will happen if hard drugs are legalized. With presription drugs (mainly oxycodone, alprazolam/Xanax, Oxycontin), we have seen a significant increase in the absolute prevalence of these pills over the past decade for supposedly legal purposes. However, the illegal diversion of this pills has steadily increased with the number of prescriptions. One of the fastest group of abuseres are teenagers who steal them from parents. Predictably, BigPharma has contributed to the problem by increasing production according to supply and demand even though it is impossible that all of the pills are being used for legit purposes. Hell, these bastards are likely to start combining benzos and opiates in one pill (like they do with cholesterol and BP meds) to keep a big seller under patent and maximize profits. For example, there were 16 million prescriptions for Oxycodone last year in Broward County which has a population of 2 million. Prescription drug abuse is 4x the national average in Broward Co due to increased prevalence. There is increased prevalence in Broward because there fewer laws regulating pain clinics and no prescriber database.
Bottom line: Deregulate (i.e. Legalize) a highly addictive substance and it's prevalence skyrockets according to supply vs. demand. Eventually, absolute prevalence is so high that it cannot be kept away from kids. Do all this in a nanny state and you get a financial disaster.
Along with the billions of dollars the private prison system makes off of "drug offenders". They lobby Congress constantly to keep drug laws and add more every year so that they can have more "customers". The corporation's profits and stock value are directly related to how many more laws they can get enacted and how many more people they can keep locked up in a "free society". Considering we have the highest percentage of people in the world incarcerated I'd say they're doing a bang up job, we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2797/
I agree - there are too many people incarcerated for drug crimes. That is why I have called for the "Singapore Method" of winning the WOD. While there are some illegal drugs in Singapore, most would say that they are winning their front in the WOD, and not spending billions on housing those pesky drug dealers. All you need is a few pesos for some rope and a branch that is about 10' off the ground ;)
No, they were not. Of the big three, heroin is the oldest but it's absolute prevalence has only been significant for 30 years. Crack hit it's peak in the 90's, and meth has been growing over the past 10 years.
Yes, they were. Somehow reading my statement you missed the word "most" in my sentence, I didn't use the word "all". I'll touch on 2 of the drugs you mentioned, of "the big 3", as crystal meth is a relatively new player in the market place.
Fact #1 Bayer, the aspirin company, used to sell Heroin over the counter in drug stores, it was marketed as a cough suppressant. As a German company, Bayer was forced to give up the trademark after World War I under the Treaty of Versailles.
Fact #2 Cocaine, first manufactured by Merck, was popular, too. Parke-Davis (which is now a subsidiary of Pfizer) advertised a "cocaine kit" that it promised could "supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent and . . . render the sufferer insensitive to pain." Late-nineteenth century advertisements for "Cocaine Toothache Drops" promised users (including children such as those depicted in the ads) an "instantaneous cure." FYI - Cocaine is a "bad drug" and is also the major ingredient in "crack".
Another popular product, "Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup," contained one grain (65 mg) of morphine per ounce, and was marketed to mothers to quiet restless infants and children. McCormick (the spice company) and others sold "paregoric," a mixture of highly concentrated alcohol with opium, as a treatment for diarrhea, coughs, and pain, with instructions on the bottle for infants, children, and adults. Another medication called laudanum was similar, but with 25 times the opium. Heroin and opium were both marketed as asthma treatments, too. And, of course, cocaine was an ingredient in Coca-Cola from 1886 until 1900.
America did have addicts in the nineteenth century (perhaps as much as 0.5 percent of the population), there are some things it notably did not have. Most important, there was virtually none of the violence, death, and crime we associate with the present-day drug problem. Most drug users were not street criminals; instead, the typical addict was, as author Mike Gray put it, "a middle-aged southern white woman strung out on laudanum." Many or most opium addicts led more or less normal lives and managed to keep their addiction hidden.
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6788/cocainetoothachedrops.jpg
I agree - there are too many people incarcerated for drug crimes. That is why I have called for the "Singapore Method" of winning the WOD. While there are some illegal drugs in Singapore, most would say that they are winning their front in the WOD, and not spending billions on housing those pesky drug dealers. All you need is a few pesos for some rope and a branch that is about 10' off the ground ;)
Have you been to Singapore? I have and I sure as shit wouldn't want my country's laws modeled after theirs. The government can randomly drug test anyone they want at any time, **** that! Not to mention anyone entering the country from another who's ingested a drug somewhere else, where it may be legal, may be guilty due to the drug staying in their system. It's none of their business and I sure as hell wouldn't stand for it in my own country.
Reports like this contradict your assumptions as well. Just a quick Googling as I know it's from 2004. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/15/singapore.executions.reut/
Singapore's drug laws are among the world's harshest. Anyone aged 18 or over convicted of carrying more than 15 grams of heroin faces mandatory execution by hanging.
But drug addiction was still a problem, Amnesty said, adding that there was "no convincing evidence" high execution rates had curbed drug use in Singapore.
It cited Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau statistics showing 3,393 people arrested for drug offences in 2002 and the number of new drug abusers up 16 percent from 2001. Use of methamphetamines, or "ice," also showed a significant increase.
Here's a more recent article, which is quite interesting, on Singapore and their drug problem. http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/05/23/drug-addiction-and-rehabilitation-in-draconian-singapore/
In America, a supposedly free country, you should be able to ingest whatever you want into your own body as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others, period.
In America, a supposedly free country, you should be able to ingest whatever you want into your own body as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others, period.
For a bit of context, I'm a serving member of my county's Child Placement Review Board and have been for some time. As a court sworn volunteer member I along with others review the cases of children placed in foster care due to abuse and neglect.
I can absolutely and positively assure you that drug addicted parents, specifically those on coke, crack, meth and the now predominant oxy variants, are absolutely infringing on the rights of not only their children but also many of those around them. That said, I have yet to see marijuana as the root cause of any family's dysfunction or pain.
I can absolutely and positively assure you that drug addicted parents, specifically those on coke, crack, meth and the now predominant oxy variants, are absolutely infringing on the rights of not only their children but also many of those around them.
What percentage of those people compare to the upstanding parents in your area or the U.S. in general? Are we talking a tiny fraction of society? Should we punish everyone for a tiny minority of people who abuse drugs?
What if the parents use drugs responsibly, should it be allowed then? What about the percentage compared to the rest of the people who don't have children, should parentless adults be permitted to use "illegal" drugs in any fashion they choose?
Should they/us have the freedom to make those mistakes and have free choice or should the nanny state micromanage every aspect of their/our lives to "protect" us?
I think most of these people who are abusing illegal drugs will in fact find another way to get "high" no matter what's legal or not. Either through the current black market or they'll find neat and new ways of doing it like *drumroll please* bath salts!!! I guess some creative knucklehead found out one of the ingredients has similar properties to cocaine and you can get high as a kite snorting the shit. There's a bunch more examples like drinking Robitussin, dramamine, etc.
If for some reason these drugs don't appeal to them I'm sure a gambling, porn or alcohol addiction would suffice but that's not a big deal because the lawmakers are all doing it so it's deemed socially acceptable.
If I sound like I'm an advocate for drug use I'm not. You could legalize the entire gamut tomorrow and I wouldn't touch a thing personally. I choose to drink alcohol and I'm not going to be a hypocrite and tell other people they can't indulge in the drug of their choice. Either you believe in freedom and free will or you don't.
Also, thank you for volunteering for what must be a very tough job.
For a bit of context, I'm a serving member of my county's Child Placement Review Board and have been for some time. As a court sworn volunteer member I along with others review the cases of children placed in foster care due to abuse and neglect.
Good for you!
I can absolutely and positively assure you that drug addicted parents, specifically those on coke, crack, meth and the now predominant oxy variants, are absolutely infringing on the rights of not only their children but also many of those around them. That said, I have yet to see marijuana as the root cause of any family's dysfunction or pain.
And how has the WoD helped this situation? Drugs seem to be pretty plentiful and easily gotten even with the prohibitions and billions spent to prevent it.
(In other words, this is no argument FOR the WoD)
Littlelebowski
06-03-11, 21:13
So, is Mexico better off or not after Felipe Calderon took power and declared militarized war on drugs?
ForTehNguyen
06-04-11, 00:34
This is a great read on the WOD http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf.
According to this report we'd also save $41,000,000,000 a year ending the WOD http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf
I also find it rather humorous that our last 3 presidents are admitted illegal drug users and yet somehow insist that you shouldn't partake in the same activity.
not to mention the crime and violence associated with the drug war would disappear and reduced prison populations, thats also even more savings. Now cops can go after violent offenders instead of potheads.
What percentage of those people compare to the upstanding parents in your area or the U.S. in general? Are we talking a tiny fraction of society? Should we punish everyone for a tiny minority of people who abuse drugs?
What if the parents use drugs responsibly, should it be allowed then? What about the percentage compared to the rest of the people who don't have children, should parentless adults be permitted to use "illegal" drugs in any fashion they choose?
Should they/us have the freedom to make those mistakes and have free choice or should the nanny state micromanage every aspect of their/our lives to "protect" us?
I think most of these people who are abusing illegal drugs will in fact find another way to get "high" no matter what's legal or not. Either through the current black market or they'll find neat and new ways of doing it like *drumroll please* bath salts!!! I guess some creative knucklehead found out one of the ingredients has similar properties to cocaine and you can get high as a kite snorting the shit. There's a bunch more examples like drinking Robitussin, dramamine, etc.
If for some reason these drugs don't appeal to them I'm sure a gambling, porn or alcohol addiction would suffice but that's not a big deal because the lawmakers are all doing it so it's deemed socially acceptable.
If I sound like I'm an advocate for drug use I'm not. You could legalize the entire gamut tomorrow and I wouldn't touch a thing personally. I choose to drink alcohol and I'm not going to be a hypocrite and tell other people they can't indulge in the drug of their choice. Either you believe in freedom and free will or you don't.
Also, thank you for volunteering for what must be a very tough job.
The drugs of the 19th and early 20th century do not compare to what we're facing now in terms of potency and prevalence. The bioavailability if ingested cocaine and opium of the old days is nothing compared to today's crack and injected heroin. Even opium that is smoked and missed hepatic first pass metabolism has nothing on heroin. Crack is the perfect example of how potency and prevalence (easy to produce, easy to transport, etc.) affects demand and expense to society. The role of individual responsibility is also greatly different in today's nanny state.
Also, "free will" is a bad reason to site for drug legalization. Drug addicts are in fact slaves to their addiction and their supplier (be it a pusher on the street or BigPharma under ChadBag's system). They can no longer participate in an ordered society and become dependent on government welfare to survive. We have therefore created laws against such activity due potential harm to others. Wheather our means of enforcing those laws are effective is a legit debate that I'm happy to have.
But aren't these illicit narcotics (not including marijuana) highly addictive? If you legalize them, there will probably be a drug explosion.
What we need to do is get serious about drugs. Shoot traffickers on site. Dealers get the death penalty, and users get medical help.
The drugs of the 19th and early 20th century do not compare to what we're facing now in terms of potency and prevalence.
You last stated that these drugs did not exist in a legal form in America to which I offered proof they did. Now you're stating that they're more potent and yet I don't see any references or proof to that fact or possibly something that would substantiate your claim. As far as prevalence goes I would consider anyone, of any age, being able to purchase the drugs I mentioned over the counter at any drug store pretty prevalent.
Also, "free will" is a bad reason to site for drug legalization. Drug addicts are in fact slaves to their addiction and their supplier (be it a pusher on the street or BigPharma under ChadBag's system).
People shouldn't have free will and be able to make the decision to ingest whatever they choose into their own bodies? If one truly lives in a free society then they own their own body then they should be able to make those decisions for themselves. In our present system your local neighborhood doctor can give you a permission slip/prescription to what he thinks you should be able to have access to which often times is just as addictive if not more.
How many people in this country are on anti-depressants, mood alterants and things of that nature? Yet if you want to alter your mood, your disposition and how you feel independently it's a crime?
They can no longer participate in an ordered society and become dependent on government welfare to survive. We have therefore created laws against such activity due potential harm to others. Wheather our means of enforcing those laws are effective is a legit debate that I'm happy to have.
This is not true in all cases and is an overgeneralization of countless many people. Just because substances are made acceptable for use, whether legalizing or decriminalizing, does not mean everyone who tries them is going to become an addict either, that's an oversimplification of the matter at best.
So, is Mexico better off or not after Felipe Calderon took power and declared militarized war on drugs?
Since he won't answer your question I will. I think if you were to take a poll amongst all the Mexican citizens who've been protesting throughout their country I would have to say that they're against the war on drugs due to the escalation in violence.
http://elenemigocomun.net/2011/05/against-calderon-drug-war/
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/4673
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0616/Mexico-drug-war-Has-Felipe-Calderon-lost-control
Or go take a look at our drug war thread here on M4C for an even better examination of the war on drugs. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54574
Since he won't answer your question I will. I think if you were to take a poll amongst all the Mexican citizens who've been protesting throughout their country I would have to say that they're against the war on drugs due to the escalation in violence.
http://elenemigocomun.net/2011/05/against-calderon-drug-war/
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/4673
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0616/Mexico-drug-war-Has-Felipe-Calderon-lost-control
Or go take a look at our drug war thread here on M4C for an even better examination of the war on drugs. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54574
Actually, I answered his question in an earlier post. However, I'll repeat it for you. Mexico is much better off wrestling control of their government from the cartels - no matter the short term cost. Unlike the US, Mexico is actually fighting a real war on drugs - I'd expect it to get nasty and unpopular. However, This is just my opinion that is no better or worse than others on this forum.
Also, you don't seem to be reading my posts very carefully. I stated that the hard drugs that are currently being used, specifically crack and meth, were not available until recently. I also noted that heroin has been around longer, but not as prevalent as in it's current form. You proved nothing by describing the presence of cocaine and opium / heroin in various elixirs and sodas. These are not the same thing as crack, meth, and modern heroin. If you want evidence, I suggest that you do a simple google search for "crack potency" and "modern heroin potency." You will find multiple source supporting my statements. You will even find that today's heroin is often twice as potent as the heroin seen just 20 years ago. Hence the increased number of overdoses seen in recent years.
Finally, your statements about the prescribing abilities of physicians and the addictive properties of today's analgesics was way off the mark. I'd be interested to know if you are familiar with the process of obtaining and maintaining a DEA license? I am also a little unsure if you were trying to compare antidepressants to hard street drugs?
ForTehNguyen
06-04-11, 16:04
But aren't these illicit narcotics (not including marijuana) highly addictive? If you legalize them, there will probably be a drug explosion.
alcohol usage actually increased after prohibition than what it was before prohibition. Portugal has decriminalized drugs since 2001 and they have lower drug usage rates than the US.
The illegal profits needs to be destroyed, the drug war is nothing but an economic war. The atom bomb for this war is legalization and taxation just like how alcohol and tobacco are. These cartels would literally be bankrupt within weeks of legalization and the violence over.
interesting read here of how Portugal implemented decriminalization (not the same as legalization) and what happened to the usage raets. I would urge everyone here to read it.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
montanadave
06-04-11, 17:50
I stated that the hard drugs that are currently being used, specifically crack and meth, were not available until recently.
Not trying to be argumentative, but meth ("crank") was pretty common back in the seventies when I was working the oil fields. And a lot of folks were using it.
alcohol usage actually increased after prohibition than what it was before prohibition. Portugal has decriminalized drugs since 2001 and they have lower drug usage rates than the US....
...interesting read here of how Portugal implemented decriminalization (not the same as legalization) and what happened to the usage raets. I would urge everyone here to read it.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
Nice article. Now, here is the problem part:
Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.
How does this sit with the libertarian crowd? BTW, how is the economy in Portugal...does the acronym "PIGS" ring a bell.
And how has the WoD helped this situation? Drugs seem to be pretty plentiful and easily gotten even with the prohibitions and billions spent to prevent it.
Good question, here's the way I see it. While alcohol can be destructive, the majority of folks use it in a relatively harmless fashion. So we allow it to be sold legally partially for that reason, refusing to allow a few bad apples to spoil the bunch.
Pot is essentially harmless and shouldn't even be part of the discussion at this level. Maybe keep it away from the inherently lazy or an obese munchie-king, but other than it's a massive waste of resources. Plus it substantially fuels drug cartel activity.
However with coke, crack, meth, heroin and oxy the ratio of dysfunctional users skyrockets dramatically. This increased ratio places a equally higher ratio of people surrounding the abusers at risk, especially children. Eventually the bad outweighs the good to the point where something must be done or the after effects on society in general will be very substantial. This even more so than with alcohol.
Lastly, yes we do have cases where children are removed from the home solely due to alcohol abuse or alcohol related dysfunction. So why not do the same with the other drugs if legal? Well as stated above, I believe the volume of such cases would become overwhelming and highly devastating to the welfare of countless children as well as adults. This to the point where we will have become negligent as a society at protecting the innocent.
Lastly, yes we do have cases where children are removed from the home solely due to alcohol abuse or alcohol related dysfunction. So why not do the same with the other drugs if legal? Well as stated above, I believe the volume of such cases would become overwhelming and highly devastating to the welfare of countless children as well as adults. This to the point where we will have become negligent as a society at protecting the innocent.
These arguments make the assumption that drug use will increase after legalization. On what basis are these arguments made?
Drugs are already plentiful and easily had. "Increased availability" is not an argument that is acceptable. You can't get much more available then they already are (the outlets would change but not the availability).
These arguments make the assumption that drug use will increase after legalization. On what basis are these arguments made?
There is a pretty big difference in having to try to find a drug on the street, which may or may not be available to the seeker that day if his seller(s) is out, away, or in jail, as opposed to being able to drive to a local store that is guaranteed to have items in stock at all times. Plus most parents won't take their kids in the car to do an illegal drug deal, but they sure would run down to the store with them to obtain something legally. Just makes it all that easier for everyone.
That would facilitate a process that shouldn't even be occurring in the first place due to it's overwhelmingly negative effects, especially while likely decreasing the penalties for abusing those particularly destructive drugs. And remember that a huge part of the deterrent to some (though sadly not all) parents is the fear of legal reprisal if caught abusing to such a negative extent. The legal ramifications for drug abuse are stricter than alcohol for good reason, again except for marijuana. In my opinion.
There is a pretty big difference in having to try to find a drug on the street, which may or may not be available to the seeker that day if his seller(s) is out, away, or in jail, as opposed to being able to drive to a local store that is guaranteed to have items in stock at all times. Plus most parents won't take their kids in the car to do an illegal drug deal, but they sure would run down to the store with them to obtain something legally. Just makes it all that easier for everyone.
Based on the "epidemic" of drug user like crack and meth, it does not seem like it is really a deterrent.
Additionally, no one is saying to decriminalize the stupid stuff people do under the influence of drugs. People are still responsible for their actions. Lastly, strong public anti-drug campaigns can still be conducted and it is also a lot easier to seek help and treatment when there is not a criminal penalty for what you need help with in the first place.
That would facilitate a process that shouldn't even be occurring in the first place due to it's overwhelmingly negative effects, especially while likely decreasing the penalties for abusing those particularly destructive drugs. And remember that a huge part of the deterrent to some (though sadly not all) parents is the fear of legal reprisal if caught abusing to such a negative extent. The legal ramifications for drug abuse are stricter than alcohol for good reason, again except for marijuana. In my opinion.
Based on the "epidemic" of drug user like crack and meth, it does not seem like it is really a deterrent.
Just as I can't be certain that there would a huge increase of abuse and neglect cases if such drugs were made legal, you can't be certain there wouldn't be. All either of us can do is speculate.
I'm going with what I've seen via first hand experience in dealing with such things. You're also welcome to your opinion, I just disagree with you that everything should or even could be so cut and dry in this specific regard.
Personally, I like to get rid of the term "War on Drug" since it is more of a political euphemism. The current situation is much more of a police action at this point. So, I'm happy to end this "war" since it really does not seem to involve our military. However, I would keep most of the same laws on the books with the possible exception of decriminalization of pot for personal use. We can go back to calling it a war when we:
1) Militarize our border with a real fence, machine guns, and mines - lots and lots of glorious mines.
2) Bring the full weight of our Navy and Air Force against smugglers with a shoot first attitude.
3) Secret military tribunals for suspected foreign drug smugglers being tried as unlawful enemy combatants.
4) Mandatory, unannounced drug testing for all welfare reciepients. That means no alcohol, nicotine, or dope if you are on the public dime.
5) Mandatory lifetime of hard labor sentence in the coldest part of Alaska for domestic drug dealers.
6) Cooperation agreements with all countries receiving US foreign aid that allows us unfettered clandestine action against cartels within their border. If you want our money, we get to take out the trash a la Bin Laden style.
Ahh, fantasy is such a wonderful coping strategy.
Personally, I like to get rid of the term "War on Drug" since it is more of a political euphemism. The current situation is much more of a police action at this point. So, I'm happy to end this "war" since it really does not seem to involve our military. However, I would keep most of the same laws on the books with the possible exception of decriminalization of pot for personal use. We can go back to calling it a war when we:
1) Militarize our border with a real fence, machine guns, and mines - lots and lots of glorious mines.
2) Bring the full weight of our Navy and Air Force against smugglers with a shoot first attitude.
3) Secrete military tribunals for suspected foreign drug smugglers being tried as unlawful enemy combatants.
4) Mandatory, unannounced drug testing for all welfare reciepients. That means no alcohol, nicotine, or dope if you are on the public dime.
5) Mandatory lifetime of hard labor sentence in the coldest part of Alaska for domestic drug dealers.
6) Cooperation agreements with all countries receiving US foreign aid that allows us unfettered clandestine action against cartels within their border. If you want our money, we get to take out the trash a la Bin Laden style.
Ahh, fantasy is such a wonderful coping strategy.
What is your name? With ideas like this I would like to write you in for president
thopkins22
06-05-11, 22:07
Clearly some of us are saying that the reason we, our colleagues, and our loved ones don't do hard drugs is because they are illegal. Not because it's a stupid idea and our minds are right.
Bull. How many people that are willing to put drugs into their bodies without concern for their health, are going to be concerned with little things like laws?
Bull. How many people that are willing to put drugs into their bodies without concern for their health, are going to be concerned with little things like laws?
There is some truth in that.
Personally, I like to get rid of the term "War on Drug" since it is more of a political euphemism. The current situation is much more of a police action at this point. So, I'm happy to end this "war" since it really does not seem to involve our military. However, I would keep most of the same laws on the books with the possible exception of decriminalization of pot for personal use. We can go back to calling it a war when we:
1) Militarize our border with a real fence, machine guns, and mines - lots and lots of glorious mines.
2) Bring the full weight of our Navy and Air Force against smugglers with a shoot first attitude.
3) Secret military tribunals for suspected foreign drug smugglers being tried as unlawful enemy combatants.
4) Mandatory, unannounced drug testing for all welfare reciepients. That means no alcohol, nicotine, or dope if you are on the public dime.
5) Mandatory lifetime of hard labor sentence in the coldest part of Alaska for domestic drug dealers.
6) Cooperation agreements with all countries receiving US foreign aid that allows us unfettered clandestine action against cartels within their border. If you want our money, we get to take out the trash a la Bin Laden style.
Ahh, fantasy is such a wonderful coping strategy.
Or instead we can just legalize the drugs and get rid of the problem of the cartels etc. They will have to go on to some other vice to try and control as there won't be any money in drugs any more.
It'd be a lot cheaper and a lot less people would have to die to do it this way. Resources could then be spent on treatment and prevention.
I am pretty much only for the legalization of pot.
Do you guys think we are winning or holding a line in the war on drugs? Do you think that our citizens suffer collateral damage as a result?
Lanesmith, what was Mexico's drug and violence like before Calderon took over and declared militarized war on drugs? Is Mexico better off now?
If you are only for the legalization of pot, are you still for the war on other drugs?
What do you propose to do about the "hard" drugs?
Personally, I have some libertarian leanings regarding drug legalization (IMHO, for it to work, we can't financially support the addicts), but it seems that those who argue for full legalization are arguing that it's their constitutional right, whereas those who will only concede legalization of marijuana are basically no different than those who would allow alcohol, tobacco, and Rx drugs and nothing else.
Nice article. Now, here is the problem part:
Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.
How does this sit with the libertarian crowd? BTW, how is the economy in Portugal...does the acronym "PIGS" ring a bell.
I agree. Invoking Portuguese success with drug legalization isn't really a fair comparison. Portugal is a much different country with a different group of people and culture. It's not unlike touting the successes of European socialized medicine to argue for single payer healthcare in this country.
Personally, I like to get rid of the term "War on Drug" since it is more of a political euphemism. The current situation is much more of a police action at this point. So, I'm happy to end this "war" since it really does not seem to involve our military. However, I would keep most of the same laws on the books with the possible exception of decriminalization of pot for personal use. We can go back to calling it a war when we:
1) Militarize our border with a real fence, machine guns, and mines - lots and lots of glorious mines.
2) Bring the full weight of our Navy and Air Force against smugglers with a shoot first attitude.
3) Secret military tribunals for suspected foreign drug smugglers being tried as unlawful enemy combatants.
4) Mandatory, unannounced drug testing for all welfare reciepients. That means no alcohol, nicotine, or dope if you are on the public dime.
5) Mandatory lifetime of hard labor sentence in the coldest part of Alaska for domestic drug dealers.
6) Cooperation agreements with all countries receiving US foreign aid that allows us unfettered clandestine action against cartels within their border. If you want our money, we get to take out the trash a la Bin Laden style.
Ahh, fantasy is such a wonderful coping strategy.
You and YVK have said it better than I could have.
variablebinary
06-06-11, 03:30
If you are only for the legalization of pot, are you still for the war on other drugs?
What do you propose to do about the "hard" drugs?
Funny how that works.
"Let the stoners be free spirits, but we can't have those son of bitch crack heads run loose."
Or instead we can just legalize the drugs and get rid of the problem of the cartels etc. They will have to go on to some other vice to try and control as there won't be any money in drugs any more.
It'd be a lot cheaper and a lot less people would have to die to do it this way. Resources could then be spent on treatment and prevention.
We already spend money on treatment and prevention (education) of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. It still doesn't stop. Drug use is more likely a social/behavioral/cultural issue. People know drugs are "bad" and they've known forever. Yet, you'll always have jackasses willing to **** themselves up. I hate when patients tell me that the tobacco companies lied to them and I want to say, you mean that big ****ing warning on the package from the Surgeon General telling you that smoking will kill you didn't mean anything?? By the way, for those of you who have a family history of Age Related Macular Degeneration, don't smoke, and if you do, quit. It will increase the progression or the likelihood of you developing the disease.
Chad, I understand your point that "the war" on drugs hasn't prevented people from using, and instead of spending money fighting it, just legalize it, and use the resources for other things.
The problem is the "hard" drugs (meth, heroin, cocaine (and it's derivatives)) are highly addictive and far more devastating at a faster rate than alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. As lanesmith said earlier, it is possible for alcohol and tobacco users to be normal contributors to society. This isn't really so for the "hard" drug users. Do we pay for the treatment, medical bills, housing, food, and monthly welfare/disability check of the new addicts with tax money? Who pays for their drugs?
How do we ensure that there won't be a new cocaine, heroin, or meth lobby/interest group? Doesn't big tobacco, and now "big cannabis" have lobbyists fighting for them?
If we go along with the libertarian line of reasoning, if they have the freedom to put whatever they want in their bodies, then the country as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for their self-destruction. Their families can care for them if they wish, but the country as a whole shouldn't have to suffer the financial burden of more leeches.
Magic_Salad0892
06-06-11, 04:10
Funny how that works.
"Let the stoners be free spirits, but we can't have those son of bitch crack heads run loose."
I've never seen a violent pot head.
At least one that wasn't too lazy to commit an act of violence.
Crack heads are desperate. Pot heads are usually 17-20 year old kids with waaay too much free time.
JBT's, please take my liberty because some douchebag wants to lounge around all day and get high. I wasn't using most of my liberty anyway.
The war on drugs (freedom?) is one giant self fulfilling prophecy. Most of the crime caused by drugs is due to the stigma, criminalization, incarceration, and high price caused BY the "War on Drugs, not what the drugs do to the end users. Without communist prohibition, even the hardest drug use would be way better than a gambling or stock trading problem.
Even in countries like Singapore that execute drug users...THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPLY PROBLEMS! EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO BE HIGH IS HIGHER THAN A F*CKING KITE RIGHT NOW!
We already spend money on treatment and prevention (education) of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. It still doesn't stop. Drug use is more likely a social/behavioral/cultural issue. People know drugs are "bad" and they've known forever. Yet, you'll always have jackasses willing to **** themselves up. I hate when patients tell me that the tobacco companies lied to them and I want to say, you mean that big ****ing warning on the package from the Surgeon General telling you that smoking will kill you didn't mean anything?? By the way, for those of you who have a family history of Age Related Macular Degeneration, don't smoke, and if you do, quit. It will increase the progression or the likelihood of you developing the disease.
Chad, I understand your point that "the war" on drugs hasn't prevented people from using, and instead of spending money fighting it, just legalize it, and use the resources for other things.
The problem is the "hard" drugs (meth, heroin, cocaine (and it's derivatives)) are highly addictive and far more devastating at a faster rate than alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. As lanesmith said earlier, it is possible for alcohol and tobacco users to be normal contributors to society. This isn't really so for the "hard" drug users. Do we pay for the treatment, medical bills, housing, food, and monthly welfare/disability check of the new addicts with tax money? Who pays for their drugs?
Why is this an ADDITIONAL problem? These people already have all the access to the drugs they way. Hard, soft, or in between. This is not an additional new problem.
How do we ensure that there won't be a new cocaine, heroin, or meth lobby/interest group? Doesn't big tobacco, and now "big cannabis" have lobbyists fighting for them?
Why does it matter?
Freedom's a bitch
If we go along with the libertarian line of reasoning, if they have the freedom to put whatever they want in their bodies, then the country as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for their self-destruction. Their families can care for them if they wish, but the country as a whole shouldn't have to suffer the financial burden of more leeches.
We shouldn't be paying for them, whether they have a drug problem or an open legs problem.
Why is this an ADDITIONAL problem? These people already have all the access to the drugs they way. Hard, soft, or in between. This is not an additional new problem.
Why does it matter?
Freedom's a bitch
We shouldn't be paying for them, whether they have a drug problem or an open legs problem.
The access will arguably be easier with legalization, possibly with more people attempting to try them at an early age. There is a much greater potential of addiction with these "hard" drugs.
I will be for legalization, when we stop the entitlements. It is similar to reforming immigration/amnesty, without closing the borders. You need both for things to work.
I find it interesting that three physicians - who almost invariably have dealt with more drug addicts, drug related-illnesses, families of drug addicts etc. than everybody else combined in this thread - are all arguing against legalization of hard drugs.
Perhaps, we're just biased based on what we've seen and those are our emotions that speak out. Or perhaps we are unwilling to accept measures not based on some good controlled US-based evidence, also because we've seen what very few of you have.
P.S
Clearly some of us are saying that the reason we, our colleagues, and our loved ones don't do hard drugs is because they are illegal. Not because it's a stupid idea and our minds are right.
Even folks with right minds sometimes want to experiment with things. "I am willing to try anything once" is quite a popular behavior. Given highly addictive nature of hard drugs, I am hesitant to open them for unrestricted experimentation opportunity. Obviously, if somebody is hellbent on getting some meth, they would. But for casual experimenters, lack of easy of availability could be just enough of a hurdle they won't care to jump over.
Typing this made remember an 18 yo Russian kid who f-d up his life with the first dose of IV heroin by infecting his heart. Hopefully, this makes you see where I am coming from.
Littlelebowski
06-06-11, 13:56
This thread was originally started about the war on drugs. lanesmith made it about legalizing hard drugs to buttress his support of the war on drugs.
got a perfect case study w/ booze & prohibition...was talking to a chopper pilot for DPS yesterday and he says their estimation of what they catch is 1%-5% compared to what gets through & his team averages 2k-3k pounds per day in my area. Almost ALL of it dope. Legalization of dope certainly has merit. Businesse can always do drug tests if they want. Some say the crop is bigger than corn & grain...we are a nation of pot heads.
Not near enough demand of the hard stuff to keep all the narcos employed. I'm certainly open to giving it a shot as I have to cross into mex for work 2-3 times a month & being white knuckled sucks.
Heck, 20yrs ago we would be traveling san fernando with a compass, shotguns, a couple of birdboys, stopping into cantinas asking where the whitewing were. Went almost every weekend. Now san fernando has been stained as a mass graveyard. I really want to go back & start hunting there again.
Been working in Mexico for almost 10 years now in the mfg industry...have about 250 direct workers for the company I'm with now and are some of the happiest & well adjusted folks on the planet. They do not deserve to have the cartels and govt failing them like they are...I want my old mexico back & also miss going over to eat dinner too.
My plant manager was pulled over at gunpoint taking his son to a basked ball tourney in matamoros...the narcos apologized but messed up his wife bad. She refuses to travel and even skipped her cousin's wedding in monterrey...they were best friends. This failed war hits home to me and those that want it to continue down the same ole path sticks in my craw. We are wasting millions of dollars...and THAT is why it will never happen.
good website...check out the vid on home & the pic of the week.
Secure border is a friggin joke but we need fly over country to REALLY understand. Share this site with all your friends:
http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/
How will legalizing drugs take the profit out of producing, smuggling and selling them? Will the cost per unit stay the same? Rise? Decline? Will the 10, 25 or even 50 percent tax that is expected to be collected by the .gov be more or less than the moneys spent on bribes, seized and abandoned equipment, fees charged by all the middlemen and thugs involved in smuggling?
Does alcohol have a higher or lower profit margin after Prohibition than it did during Prohibition?. If it is less, how is it that the alcohol industry is able to spend such huge amounts of money on advertising, sponsorships and fancy packaging?
Will reducing the profit margin reduce the wealth of those involved with the illicit drug trade? Wal-Mart, operating in a slim profit margin of 4% became a financial powerhouse.
Will legalizing illicit put the drug cartels, that are responsible for so many murders and other heinous crimes out of business? Or do the drug cartels want illicit drugs to be legalized?
This thread was originally started about the war on drugs. lanesmith made it about legalizing hard drugs to buttress his support of the war on drugs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the euphemism "End the War on Drugs" is actually code for legalize all drugs. If it is not, could you please explain exactly what you want to happen when the war is ended?
Also, I've been very specific in my posts as to my views which include: decriminalization of pot for personal use, continued prosecution of hard drug pushers, and excommunication of drug users from society's safety nets.
...We shouldn't be paying for them, whether they have a drug problem or an open legs problem.
But we are already paying for them. Is there any reason to believe that we will stop paying if we legalize? Look at the resistance that FL already faces with its proposal to drug test welfare recipients.
Every example provided by the pro-legalization side has used socialist countries in Europe as examples for how legalization works. However, these countries spend a fortune on government programs to "rehabilitate" addicts. Those of us on the conservative side believe that there is no way to reasonably predict the cost of similar rehabilitation measures in the US that seem key to limiting the spread of drugs in Europe. In effect, we fear that we will trade an expensive WOD for an even more expensive rehabilitation campaign. This is predicated on the belief that the US has a unique situation due to its heterogenous society, high urban impoverished population, and pro-illegal immigrant policies with an open Southern border. There is no way to prove or disprove either side of this issue since there is no other country with similar social dynamics - one can only use their own observations of human behavior for form an opinion.
But we are already paying for them. Is there any reason to believe that we will stop paying if we legalize? Look at the resistance that FL already faces with its proposal to drug test welfare recipients.
I understand that. I am just agreeing that we should not be paying for them, now or then. But, since we are already paying for them, nothing changes with legalization. Not some huge new cost that is not already there.
Every example provided by the pro-legalization side has used socialist countries in Europe as examples for how legalization works. However, these countries spend a fortune on government programs to "rehabilitate" addicts. Those of us on the conservative side believe that there is no way to reasonably predict the cost of similar rehabilitation measures in the US that seem key to limiting the spread of drugs in Europe. In effect, we fear that we will trade an expensive WOD for an even more expensive rehabilitation campaign. This is predicated on the belief that the US has a unique situation due to its heterogenous society, high urban impoverished population, and pro-illegal immigrant policies with an open Southern border. There is no way to prove or disprove either side of this issue since there is no other country with similar social dynamics - one can only use their own observations of human behavior for form an opinion.
How will legalizing drugs take the profit out of producing, smuggling and selling them? Will the cost per unit stay the same? Rise? Decline? Will the 10, 25 or even 50 percent tax that is expected to be collected by the .gov be more or less than the moneys spent on bribes, seized and abandoned equipment, fees charged by all the middlemen and thugs involved in smuggling?
basic economics. Price is dependent on cost and a big part of the cost of drugs is based on the risks associated with them. Remove the risks, you remove that element of the cost.
Does alcohol have a higher or lower profit margin after Prohibition than it did during Prohibition?. If it is less, how is it that the alcohol industry is able to spend such huge amounts of money on advertising, sponsorships and fancy packaging?
Will reducing the profit margin reduce the wealth of those involved with the illicit drug trade? Wal-Mart, operating in a slim profit margin of 4% became a financial powerhouse.
Will legalizing illicit put the drug cartels, that are responsible for so many murders and other heinous crimes out of business? Or do the drug cartels want illicit drugs to be legalized?
It would put the cartels out of business IN THE DRUG BUSINESS. They might take up other lines of business. They are in the business due to the fact that the profit potential due to the high risk is very high. Drug legalization would remove that risk which would deflate the prices and profits.
I find it interesting that three physicians - who almost invariably have dealt with more drug addicts, drug related-illnesses, families of drug addicts etc. than everybody else combined in this thread - are all arguing against legalization of hard drugs.
Perhaps, we're just biased based on what we've seen and those are our emotions that speak out. Or perhaps we are unwilling to accept measures not based on some good controlled US-based evidence, also because we've seen what very few of you have.
A physician is not thinking with his head, but with his heart, based on the very things you say, when he comes out against legalization.
Those experiences are with the CURRENT FAILED REGIME OF MAKING DRUGS ILLEGAL. Why would you as physicians encourage a failed regime that is killing people and harming them every day?
The evidence we DO have is that the current regime of making drugs illegal has only made lots of criminals rich, has not stopped drug use at all (and may be inflating drug use), and has greatly increased the violence and crime associated with the drug trade.
The experience of prohibition shows that this is due to the illegality of the substance creating a lucrative black market that makes it worth while to the criminals to try and exploit. When prohibition ended, so did the gang violence trying to control it.
The experience we have with making it illegal has shown that to be a disaster. Those who want to keep it illegal have shown NO EVIDENCE that that has any effects.
Experience in this country with prohibition, experiences in other countries with drug decriminalization and legalization, as well as basic market principles show us a better way. (How much better depends on how it is implemented and avoiding screwing it up by the govt)
P.S
Even folks with right minds sometimes want to experiment with things. "I am willing to try anything once" is quite a popular behavior. Given highly addictive nature of hard drugs, I am hesitant to open them for unrestricted experimentation opportunity. Obviously, if somebody is hellbent on getting some meth, they would. But for casual experimenters, lack of easy of availability could be just enough of a hurdle they won't care to jump over.
Typing this made remember an 18 yo Russian kid who f-d up his life with the first dose of IV heroin by infecting his heart. Hopefully, this makes you see where I am coming from.
This statement is not based on any reasonable facts. There is nothing NOW, with the current drug laws, that make it harder for anyone who wants to try drugs to try them. It is probably easier now than it would be as a kid or someone who wants to try can just find a guy in an alley and buy some. Or IN his school Any alley in some areas.
We don't have lack of easy availability. In fact, with legalization, you would probably have drugs be LESS AVAILABLE. Now they are available on most any street corner in urban areas. They are literally available every where you go.
The experience of medical MJ dispensaries shows that they do not proliferate that much and legal MJ in those states that allow it is most definitely LESS AVAILABLE than the illegal sorts.
If drugs were legal that does not mean that they are encouraged and supported by society/govt/etc. The same way societal pressure has reduced smoking by 50% over the last 40 or so years, societal pressure would also play a role in limiting drug use if they were legal. Companies could still require drug tests and limit job opportunities to those who pass, etc.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the current regime works so why are we arguing for it? Those who argue for drug legalization are not arguing for drug use or encouraging drug use (at least most of us aren't). We are saying 2 things: one, true freedom means I can put into my body whatever I want (and have to suffer the consequences) and two, the current way we handle drugs has overwhelmingly failed, so lets try something else, something that removes a lot of the money to be found in the drug trade, and which makes it easier for people to seek treatment (as they are no longer criminals), and easier to track and control the trade in drugs.
ForTehNguyen
06-06-11, 18:12
How will legalizing drugs take the profit out of producing, smuggling and selling them? Will the cost per unit stay the same? Rise? Decline? Will the 10, 25 or even 50 percent tax that is expected to be collected by the .gov be more or less than the moneys spent on bribes, seized and abandoned equipment, fees charged by all the middlemen and thugs involved in smuggling?
why aren't there tobacco wars or alcohol wars? There is no profits to be made when its legal by criminals. Drugs are expensive because of the very expensive illegal network of production, smuggling, and distribution that it has to navigate in the black market. This is economics 101. If it were legalized how is the cartel suppose to compete price wise against a factory that knows how to make the stuff efficiently. Thats why its not worth trying to illegally make cigarettes or alcohol. Its so cheap in the store theres no economic viability in the black market.
why aren't there tobacco wars or alcohol wars?
Somewhere in the depth of this thread I posted the fact that tobacco use prevalence in this country ranges between 9 and 25%, depending on state. This is multitude of factors more than any given drug. Chad countered that the rates are falling but they are what they are. Chad also countered that they are so high because tobacco has been more entrenched historically and this is true; that doesn't prevent a reasonable belief that part of this huge prevalence is ease of availability.
Now this is prevalence of tobacco use; the prevalence of experimentation is higher.
Current use rate for opiates is 0.6% of population. What's your projection of experimentation rates for opiates if they were as cheap and accessible as tobacco (again, tobacco use is 9-25%)?
Somewhere in the depth of this thread I posted the fact that tobacco use prevalence in this country ranges between 9 and 25%, depending on state. This is multitude of factors more than any given drug. Chad countered that the rates are falling but they are what they are. Chad also countered that they are so high because tobacco has been more entrenched historically and this is true; that doesn't prevent a reasonable belief that part of this huge prevalence is ease of availability.
Now this is prevalence of tobacco use; the prevalence of experimentation is higher.
Current use rate for opiates is 0.6% of population. What's your projection of experimentation rates for opiates if they were as cheap and accessible as tobacco (again, tobacco use is 9-25%)?
Chad also believes that economic pressures of reducing the risk of importing illegal drugs would collapse the cartels by deflating consumer costs. On this point, he may be right. However, he has not convinced me that this will reduce the prevalence of dugs in our society which, like you have stated, is a major driving force for drug use. This begs the question, is the goal to remove the cartels or decrease drug prevalence? His theory seems most effective at the former, and potentially disastrous for the latter. Under Chad's system, industry would be tasked with providing drugs. However, we have seen that capitalism is excellent at providing the consumer with ever "improving" products for every price point. Just look at the variety and quantity of plasma TVs, groceries, and automobiles that Americans enjoy compared to socialist countries. This is especially dangerous for society when the substance are addictive. Consider the regulations and taxes that are needed to control tobacco and alcohol prevalence. What would the prevalence and hence consumption rates do if all government regulations and additional taxes were removed?
Anyway you cut it, the liberals and libertarians cannot implement their notions of ideality in the today's society without running into the problems of reality. They wave their hands and pay short shrift to the "details that will need to be worked out" knowing full well that these details are the unintended consequences that bite you in the ass.
For example, lets go down Chad's rabbit hole a little further with just a few of the endless questions that must be answered. So we now have legalized drugs produced by industry (i.e. BigPharma). Will they be regulated by the DFA for purity? Will drug manufactures be immunized against class action law suits of the sort that stung the tobacco industry? What happens to the scheduled narcotics that now require a prescription (very important since this is one of the fastest growing types of abuse)? Will they be taxed? Will Medicaid/Medicare fund the purchase of drugs that have potential medicinal benefit? Can certain states exercise their Constitutional right to outlaw drugs, or are we going to create another unconstitutional federal law for all of the states - maybe an amendment to the Constitution? I could go on forever, but each of these questions have implications for the libertarian belief that drug legalization will eliminate the black market or reduce usage in the US.
thopkins22
06-07-11, 01:52
Chad also believes that economic pressures of reducing the risk of importing illegal drugs would collapse the cartels by deflating consumer costs. On this point, he may be right. However, he has not convinced me that this will reduce the prevalence of dugs in our society which, like you have stated, is a major driving force for drug use. This begs the question, is the goal to remove the cartels or decrease drug prevalence? His theory seems most effective at the former, and potentially disastrous for the latter. Under Chad's system, industry would be tasked with providing drugs. However, we have seen that capitalism is excellent at providing the consumer with ever "improving" products for every price point. Just look at the variety and quantity of plasma TVs, groceries, and automobiles that Americans enjoy compared to socialist countries. This is especially dangerous for society when the substance are addictive. Consider the regulations and taxes that are needed to control tobacco and alcohol prevalence. What would the prevalence and hence consumption rates do if all government regulations and additional taxes were removed?
Anyway you cut it, the liberals and libertarians cannot implement their notions of ideality in the today's society without running into the problems of reality. They wave their hands and pay short shrift to the "details that will need to be worked out" knowing full well that these details are the unintended consequences that bite you in the ass.
For example, lets go down Chad's rabbit hole a little further with just a few of the endless questions that must be answered. So we now have legalized drugs produced by industry (i.e. BigPharma). Will they be regulated by the DFA for purity? Will drug manufactures be immunized against class action law suits of the sort that stung the tobacco industry? What happens to the scheduled narcotics that now require a prescription (very important since this is one of the fastest growing types of abuse)? Will they be taxed? Will Medicaid/Medicare fund the purchase of drugs that have potential medicinal benefit? Can certain states exercise their Constitutional right to outlaw drugs, or are we going to create another unconstitutional federal law for all of the states - maybe an amendment to the Constitution? I could go on forever, but each of these questions have implications for the libertarian belief that drug legalization will eliminate the black market or reduce usage in the US.
With all the silly anti-liberal talk you seem so fond of, you often talk like one. "Industry" in the negative, "big pharma," and so forth.
Without laws regulating what you can legally put in your body would you be injecting heroine intravenously? Or are you inherently more intelligent than the American population who apparently would turn into a nation of complete and total fiends? Do you really believe that there are people whom are stupid enough to do these drugs and yet have enough respect for the rule of law that they choose to not do them?
Also, you continually harp on the notion that somehow these big evil pharmaceutical companies would decide to begin creating terrible and much more dangerous drugs if we ended the current war on drugs. Guess what? The illicit drug trade IS an incredibly huge industry...and they are creating more dangerous drugs which have taken off in popularity.
Some knowledge of how a free and open marketplace works for the benefit of all people in a free society would help you grasp these notions. If an industry is forced into the black market then there are no courts to settle disputes so predictably we see violence. If there is no way to prosecute fraud then there is no incentive to produce a safe and quality product. Which of the big companies do you think would advertise heroine as being wonderful and safe?
Another thing I've noticed you inexplicably and repeatedly mention throughout this thread is the idea that for whatever reason the government would be put in charge of distributing drugs. Why you believe that is beyond me...for that matter why or how someone would have that authority is beyond me.
Have you read the reports from countries that tried it? Once these countries decriminalized/legalized hard drugs why did the usage rates go down? Why isn't there a blossoming industry selling high quality(or for that matter low quality) cocaine and meth in those countries? Why didn't an honest discussion of the dangers of drug usage and an end of police and military resources being used to treat a medical problem create nations of muggers and vagrants?
I'm not in favor of treating addicts with funds collected by the state either...but the cold hard reality of what those countries have done has proven to be cheaper and more effective. Do you practice at a government funded rehab clinic by chance?
Some knowledge of how a free and open marketplace works for the benefit of all people in a free society would help you grasp these notions.
The US marketplace is neither completely free or open. Most industries have their interests protected by the politicians they contribute to. Lobbyists are part of the lawmaking process, frequently inserting clauses for the benefit of the interests they work for. I'm not saying your comment is without merit, but it doesn't apply to the US, which is the country we are talking about.
If an industry is forced into the black market then there are no courts to settle disputes so predictably we see violence. If there is no way to prosecute fraud then there is no incentive to produce a safe and quality product. Which of the big companies do you think would advertise heroine as being wonderful and safe?
You have no argument from me here, but I wanted to follow your train of thought to its end. Assuming that most users of cocaine and heroin would have a legitimate legal claim against the company producing it, because these drugs don't really have any beneficial effects (at least none that have been marketed as such, YET), then who would want to produce it in the first place? These drugs are far more destructive than alcohol and tobacco. Wouldn't we be back at square one with production taking place in the black market?
Or, do we have government regulations preventing lawsuits as long as certain standards, concentration, purity, packaging, warnings etc. are met?
Another thing I've noticed you inexplicably and repeatedly mention throughout this thread is the idea that for whatever reason the government would be put in charge of distributing drugs. Why you believe that is beyond me...for that matter why or how someone would have that authority is beyond me.
Government would most likely be put in charge of regulating or taxing the drugs. This is currently the case with tobacco, alcohol, and legal marijuana.
Chad also believes that economic pressures of reducing the risk of importing illegal drugs would collapse the cartels by deflating consumer costs. On this point, he may be right.
What? That must be why the Mafia disappeared after the end of Prohibition right? No wait...
Personally, I have some libertarian leanings regarding drug legalization (IMHO, for it to work, we can't financially support the addicts), but it seems that those who argue for full legalization are arguing that it's their constitutional right, whereas those who will only concede legalization of marijuana are basically no different than those who would allow alcohol, tobacco, and Rx drugs and nothing else.
Well said. I am conflicted on the issue. All I know for sure is I am against the current systen with untold thousands of people in prison on relatively chicken shit charges who have their lives, ability to get a job, etc., permanently damaged by our drug laws and collateral consequences related to drug convictions.
Well said. I am conflicted on the issue. All I know for sure is I am against the current systen with untold thousands of people in prison on relatively chicken shit charges who have their lives, ability to get a job, etc., permanently damaged by our drug laws and collateral consequences related to drug convictions.
Honestly, I haven't made up my mind either...
Does anyone have hard stats on the percentage of people in the corrections system on drug possession charges ONLY? Brian, I assume that this is what you mean by chicken shit charges.
What about people who committed other crimes and drugs were found in their possession? Drug Dealers? Shoplifters? Would that still be chicken shit? Or, do they deserve to be in prison?
Frankly, I doubt their lives were going to be anything but chicken shit if they were hooked on drugs in the first place. They wouldn't have kept their jobs for very long. But hey, it's their right to put whatever they want into their bodies. So, we decriminalize the drug use and discontinue the war on drugs. As a country, we decide that we foot the bill to rehabilitate them. While we do, we are financially supporting them because no employer wants to hire a junkie (welfare, free low income healthcare, food stamps). They relapse. We pay some more. Eventually, their brains are fried and they have a hard time working. Onto disability they go. Let's pay some more!
Now, if we don't pay to rehabilitate or support them, their drug use would eventually be a death sentence. Can we stomach that as a compassionate society?
Just thinking out loud....
By they way, does anyone have hard data on what the success rate of rehabilitation is?
Generally I like the think that I am a borderline Libertarian. If you want to stick your finger in a light socket to see what happens, by all means do so. However, this country has become the largest "nanny state" ever and there is no way that people will stand by and allow drug abusers to completely wither away. Especially if society decides to legalize it.
So that means someone will foot the bill (just like the illegal alien who slipped and hit his head and is now suing the federal government) and that someone will be us.
Spurholder
06-07-11, 08:51
Generally I like the think that I am a borderline Libertarian. If you want to stick your finger in a light socket to see what happens, by all means do so. However, this country has become the largest "nanny state" ever and there is no way that people will stand by and allow drug abusers to completely wither away. Especially if society decides to legalize it.
So that means someone will foot the bill (just like the illegal alien who slipped and hit his head and is now suing the federal government) and that someone will be us.
Succint, direct, to the point, and spot on, IG.
thopkins22
06-07-11, 10:58
Generally I like the think that I am a borderline Libertarian. If you want to stick your finger in a light socket to see what happens, by all means do so. However, this country has become the largest "nanny state" ever and there is no way that people will stand by and allow drug abusers to completely wither away. Especially if society decides to legalize it.
So that means someone will foot the bill (just like the illegal alien who slipped and hit his head and is now suing the federal government) and that someone will be us.
Certainly I think most of the libertarian leaning folks in this thread agree that society shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for the problems created. But seeing as we're pretty much doing that anyway, AND spending a far larger amount on enforcement, perhaps we should pick what I believe would be the cheaper and more constitutional side of the fence.
thopkins22
06-07-11, 11:05
The US marketplace is neither completely free or open. Most industries have their interests protected by the politicians they contribute to. Lobbyists are part of the lawmaking process, frequently inserting clauses for the benefit of the interests they work for. I'm not saying your comment is without merit, but it doesn't apply to the US, which is the country we are talking about.This also has merit, but would even the most left wing of politicians accept money from a group advocating heroine in the classroom?
You have no argument from me here, but I wanted to follow your train of thought to its end. Assuming that most users of cocaine and heroin would have a legitimate legal claim against the company producing it, because these drugs don't really have any beneficial effects (at least none that have been marketed as such, YET), then who would want to produce it in the first place? These drugs are far more destructive than alcohol and tobacco. Wouldn't we be back at square one with production taking place in the black market?
Or, do we have government regulations preventing lawsuits as long as certain standards, concentration, purity, packaging, warnings etc. are met?
We don't need any government regulation. If a company advertises it's product as being 100% pure cocaine, and it turns out to be 50% rat poison, they have committed fraud and knowingly endangered their customers and would be prosecuted. I don't think that even the worst politician would want to give suppliers of hard drugs the same protections as we give companies who produce vaccinations.
With all the silly anti-liberal talk you seem so fond of, you often talk like one. "Industry" in the negative, "big pharma," and so forth.
I am a big proponent of free enterprise. However, the pharmaceutical industry has become an ugly example of government picking winners and losers. Just look at how Medicare Part D and the Health Care bill went down.
Without laws regulating what you can legally put in your body would you be injecting heroine intravenously? Or are you inherently more intelligent than the American population who apparently would turn into a nation of complete and total fiends? Do you really believe that there are people whom are stupid enough to do these drugs and yet have enough respect for the rule of law that they choose to not do them?
I'm not more intelligent, but I am more responsible than the 45% of Americans who are currently sucking on the government's tits. Another interesting factoid, do you know which physicians are most likely to suffer addiction problems? Answer: anesthesiologist. Why: because it is prevalent in their practice. They are surrounded by the shit - just like kids would be if you could buy it from a pez dispenser and coke machines.
Also, you continually harp on the notion that somehow these big evil pharmaceutical companies would decide to begin creating terrible and much more dangerous drugs if we ended the current war on drugs. Guess what? The illicit drug trade IS an incredibly huge industry...and they are creating more dangerous drugs which have taken off in popularity.
Pharmaceutical companies are not evil, I'm just a little butt hurt due to their current situation with the government as it pertains to Medicare D and Obamacare. However, I still maintain that the prevalence of drugs will increase if placed on an open market unless government regulates or taxes it into submission.
Some knowledge of how a free and open marketplace works for the benefit of all people in a free society would help you grasp these notions. If an industry is forced into the black market then there are no courts to settle disputes so predictably we see violence. If there is no way to prosecute fraud then there is no incentive to produce a safe and quality product. Which of the big companies do you think would advertise heroine as being wonderful and safe?
The same type of companies that advertised smoking making you more attractive. The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit and I would expect drug manufacturers to use all available means to do that. Do you think that some company is going to do this for free? If you and Chad are serious about opening the drug trade to industry, expect them to advertise unless regulated by the government.
Another thing I've noticed you inexplicably and repeatedly mention throughout this thread is the idea that for whatever reason the government would be put in charge of distributing drugs. Why you believe that is beyond me...for that matter why or how someone would have that authority is beyond me.
I assume that the government would not initially distribute drugs if they were legalized and opened to the free market. But, do you honestly think that they would go unregulated by government? Experience teaches me that the natural tendency of government is to ever increasingly inject itself into industry al la TARP, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Again, I'm operating on what I know has actually happened in terms of government regulation, not some libertarian ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved in our current nanny state.
Have you read the reports from countries that tried it? Once these countries decriminalized/legalized hard drugs why did the usage rates go down? Why isn't there a blossoming industry selling high quality(or for that matter low quality) cocaine and meth in those countries? Why didn't an honest discussion of the dangers of drug usage and an end of police and military resources being used to treat a medical problem create nations of muggers and vagrants?
I have read the reports. None of them describe a situation where drugs are completely legalized and open to industry like Chad and you describe. In fact, there is no country that has tried this approach as trafficking and selling hard drugs such has heroin and crack is still illegal in the Netherlands, Portugal, and other countries with liberal drug laws. The reason why cocaine and meth are not running rampant in those countries is because they are still illegal and the governments still aggressively prosecute traffickers (4 years for traffic large quantities of pot and 12-16 years for trafficking hard stuff in the Netherlands). There is other unique logistical factors that limit the spread of hard drugs, but these are harder to quantify. So, please show me a country that has completely legalized all drugs, opened their production to industry, and seen their usage rates decrease. You can't because it has never happened.
I'm not in favor of treating addicts with funds collected by the state either...but the cold hard reality of what those countries have done has proven to be cheaper and more effective. Do you practice at a government funded rehab clinic by chance?
I work in two quasi-private hospital emergency departments that receive some county support for providing essential services to the community (trauma services, inpatient psychiatry, and other low reimbursement services). At any given time, about 30% of my patients are being seen for problems with mental illness and the vast majority of those are due to substance abuse. In-patient detox is a frequent request of these patients. I honestly cannot remember a single case where a patient with cocaine or opiate dependance was employed or self insured - non a single one.
[/QUOTE]
montanadave
06-07-11, 14:37
Another interesting factoid, do you know which physicians are most likely to suffer addiction problems? Answer: anesthesiologist. Why: because it is prevalent in their practice. They are surrounded by the shit - just like kids would be if you could buy it from a pez dispenser and coke machines.
In my experience treating physicians (particularly anesthesiologists) addicted to opioids, the ease of access was not the principle factor in their drug abuse and eventual addiction. They possessed a professional hubris inculcated in them through their education and training which deluded them into thinking they were capable of managing their use of these drugs without suffering the inevitable consequences of addiction.
I don't discount the role of availability (although those with more ready access also are subject to more rigorous scrutiny), but it seems that many of these physicians walked themselves right into the trap of addiction thinking all the time, "I know exactly what I'm doing, I know precisely how these drugs work, and I'm trained to prescribe, dispense, and monitor the use of these drugs; therefore, I'm capable of controlling my own personal use."
The attitude is roughly analogous to teens who display that "I'm bulletproof, it'll never happen to me" temperament which drives their parents insane. The higher tolerance for risk seen in late adolescence is primarily due to a transitional period of cognitive development in which executive functions including consequence assessment and outcome prediction are still inchoate, but whether the mindset is biological or institutional, the result is the same.
For what it's worth, this points to one of the fundamental dangers in the libertarian doctrine that all citizens should be free to choose their course of action and accept responsibility and accountability for those actions. There are members of our society who are, for a variety of reasons, more vulnerable and less capable of fully comprehending the consequences of their actions. Such is the case of adolescents and young adults, who are still developing cognitively and are less inclined to make the "rational" choices many of us, as mature adults, would presume they should. As distasteful as it may seem, it is incumbent upon society as a whole to provide some level of protection to these more vulnerable populations.
In my experience treating physicians (particularly anesthesiologists) addicted to opioids, the ease of access was not the principle factor in their drug abuse and eventual addiction. They possessed a professional hubris inculcated in them through their education and training which deluded them into thinking they were capable of managing their use of these drugs without suffering the inevitable consequences of addiction.
I don't discount the role of availability (although those with more ready access also are subject to more rigorous scrutiny), but it seems that many of these physicians walked themselves right into the trap of addiction thinking all the time, "I know exactly what I'm doing, I know precisely how these drugs work, and I'm trained to prescribe, dispense, and monitor the use of these drugs; therefore, I'm capable of controlling my own personal use."
The attitude is roughly analogous to teens who display that "I'm bulletproof, it'll never happen to me" temperament which drives their parents insane. The higher tolerance for risk seen in late adolescence is primarily due to a transitional period of cognitive development in which executive functions including consequence assessment and outcome prediction are still inchoate, but whether the mindset is biological or institutional, the result is the same.
For what it's worth, this points to one of the fundamental dangers in the libertarian doctrine that all citizens should be free to choose their course of action and accept responsibility and accountability for those actions. There are members of our society who are, for a variety of reasons, more vulnerable and less capable of fully comprehending the consequences of their actions. Such is the case of adolescents and young adults, who are still developing cognitively and are less inclined to make the "rational" choices many of us, as mature adults, would presume they should. As distasteful as it may seem, it is incumbent upon society as a whole to provide some level of protection to these more vulnerable populations.
You have excellent points about protecting the vulnerable. However, your experience with treating physicians is not the consensus of the medical community:
http://www.aapd-saac.org/meetingpapers/2003/hines.pdf
http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/fulltext/2008/11000/addiction_and_substance_abuse_in_anesthesiology.25.aspx
It should be noted that anesthesiologists tend to abuse Fentanyl, Sufentanyl, and even Propofol which are ubiquitous in the operating rooms. If it was professional hubris driving abuse, then the drugs that are at their fingertips would not be so over-represented.
montanadave
06-07-11, 16:05
You have excellent points about protecting the vulnerable. However, your experience with treating physicians is not the consensus of the medical community.
Thanks for the links. They are both informative articles.
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between the mindset which may predispose an individual to initially engage in high risk behaviors and the behaviors and patterns of the addicted individual in the maintenance phase.
And I'm not surprised that the medical community is reluctant to acknowledge the role of "professional hubris" in addiction among physicians as such an admission would point to some fundamental flaws in how doctors are educated and trained. The only professional group I have seen which ostracizes addicts and sees them as a professional embarrassment more than physicians is law enforcement. Both groups tend to cling to the long-held perception of addiction as weakness and moral failure, bringing shame upon their fellows and damaging their status in the public's eye. Such attitudes create an atmosphere which further motivates the addict to conceal their behavior, discourages them from seeking treatment, and offers little or no support for the recovering addict.
You have excellent points about protecting the vulnerable. However, your experience with treating physicians is not the consensus of the medical community:
http://www.aapd-saac.org/meetingpapers/2003/hines.pdf
http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/fulltext/2008/11000/addiction_and_substance_abuse_in_anesthesiology.25.aspx
I will read those. I have no personal experience but did read an article that more or less mirrored what montanadave said.
It should be noted that anesthesiologists tend to abuse Fentanyl, Sufentanyl, and even Propofol which are ubiquitous in the operating rooms. If it was professional hubris driving abuse, then the drugs that are at their fingertips would not be so over-represented.
Logical fallacy. Having those sorts of things available only means that those who want to abuse will more likely choose what they are familiar with and have access to. It does not mean that having those things available will lead to abuse.
Thanks for the links. They are both informative articles.
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between the mindset which may predispose an individual to initially engage in high risk behaviors and the behaviors and patterns of the addicted individual in the maintenance phase.
And I'm not surprised that the medical community is reluctant to acknowledge the role of "professional hubris" in addiction among physicians as such an admission would point to some fundamental flaws in how doctors are educated and trained. The only professional group I have seen which ostracizes addicts and sees them as a professional embarrassment more than physicians is law enforcement. Both groups tend to cling to the long-held perception of addiction as weakness and moral failure, bringing shame upon their fellows and damaging their status in the public's eye. Such attitudes create an atmosphere which further motivates the addict to conceal their behavior, discourages them from seeking treatment, and offers little or no support for the recovering addict.
You are very correct about the house of medicine's stance on substance abuse. In some ways, things are changing in the majority of states. Provided that the doctor approaches the state with the problem, an addicted physician will likely be able to stay in the profession. The medical board will mandate treatment and will supervise their practice to insure patient safety. The physician will also have to report their past problem to all employers and hospitals that grant privileges. However, this is simply the hospital covering its liability in case a patient is harmed by an impaired physician who was known to have problems.
However, if they catch you diverting or selling, you're are generally toast. Infractions such as these get published in most medical board's newsletters and get referred to the authorities. I have no problem with this since the involved physicians are using their position of trust to make a profit. We have had a couple of physicians in my region get long prison sentences for diversion and kickbacks from patients who sell.
Logical fallacy. Having those sorts of things available only means that those who want to abuse will more likely choose what they are familiar with and have access to. It does not mean that having those things available will lead to abuse.
That is the point - availability. Most physicians are very familiar with narcotics and prescribe them regularly. As an emergency physician, we routinely perform procedural sedation with the same drugs as anesthesiologists. We are also very familiar with narcotics and work in a high pressure environment similar to the OR. However, our rates of abuse are nothing like anesthesiologists. That is because we are not looking at them all the time. These ease of access / prevalence phenomenon is acknowledged as the major factor by anesthesiologist's own professional society - feel free to disagree with them if you wish.
Thomas M-4
06-07-11, 18:35
You are practically using the same argument that the Libs use about gun control if you have access to it means to you will use it.
You have a gun right? You must be planning on murdering some one using your logic.
You are practically using the same argument that the Libs use about gun control if you have access to it means to you will use it.
You have a gun right? You must be planning on murdering some one using your logic.
I think the more proper analogy would be that, I have a gun, and I intend to shoot it....at the range, shooting paper.
I don't think Lane's argument is wrong at all, but I get your point that those of us that aren't inclined to use drugs, won't, even if it's around. If I feel like drinking a beer and there's one in the refrigerator, I'm all over it. However, if I've got to get my clothes on, drive down to the store etc., who knows, I might not. Only in this case, it's not beer, but very powerful and addicting narcotics.
My own little story in support of your point...I grew up in my parents' liquor store. I was literally surrounded by the stuff, spending hours after school in the liquor storeroom doing homework and reading books. To this day, I'm not much of a drinker.
You are practically using the same argument that the Libs use about gun control if you have access to it means to you will use it.
You have a gun right? You must be planning on murdering some one using your logic.
In some ways, the tactics of the left are sound in that reducing the availability and prevalence of all guns should decrease their overall usage (less people go to the range, take a class, or commit a crime). However, there is a phenomenon of endogeneity bias leading to reverse causality in most Lefty statistical analysis on crime (i.e. higher crime rates leading to more gun ownership for protection).
The problems with the left is the premise behind their strategy that there is no legitimate reason to have a gun, and that individuals do not have a right to own a gun. This runs contrary to the fact that guns serve a beneficial purpose to society when used legally as a means of recreation, protection, and gathering game. It also contradicts the protections afforded to us under the 2nd Amendment. In other words, the harm to society caused by illegal gun usage does not out weigh their beneficial uses and the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
Contrast this with hard drugs that have no legitimate usage or protections afforded by the Constitution.
Another example of availability/prevalence leading to increased usage would to be the prevalence of slot machines in Vegas. There is a reason why you can't turn your head or take a piss without looking at a slot machine. The casinos in Vegas would not pay to have them placed everywhere if they were not being used.
I wanted to quickly thank everyone for participating in this debate. There is inherent value in having your beliefs challenged and I very much enjoy the exchange.
Prior to this debate, I was against legalization of all drugs including pot. I've since moved my position in favor of decriminalization of marijuana for personal use. Trust me, it is not easy to change my mind on social issues so this is quite an achievement for my more libertarian colleagues.
I have to step away from the computer for a few days to get back to regular life. I'll be use to check back in a couple of days if the thread is still going strong.
Thomas M-4
06-07-11, 22:46
In some ways, the tactics of the left are sound in that reducing the availability and prevalence of all guns should decrease their overall usage (less people go to the range, take a class, or commit a crime). However, there is a phenomenon of endogeneity bias leading to reverse causality in most Lefty statistical analysis on crime (i.e. higher crime rates leading to more gun ownership for protection).
The problems with the left is the premise behind their strategy that there is no legitimate reason to have a gun, and that individuals do not have a right to own a gun. This runs contrary to the fact that guns serve a beneficial purpose to society when used legally as a means of recreation, protection, and gathering game. It also contradicts the protections afforded to us under the 2nd Amendment. In other words, the harm to society caused by illegal gun usage does not out weigh their beneficial uses and the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
Contrast this with hard drugs that have no legitimate usage or protections afforded by the Constitution.
Another example of availability/prevalence leading to increased usage would to be the prevalence of slot machines in Vegas. There is a reason why you can't turn your head or take a piss without looking at a slot machine. The casinos in Vegas would not pay to have them placed everywhere if they were not being used.
If drugs were actually hard to get then I could see some of your points that you make. But the sad truth is it is they are readily available. As I posted earlier some parts of the city I cant go to the gas station with out having 1/2 dozen hood rats running up to me wanting to sell drugs. I have by accident got off the wrong freeway off ramp in Atlanta and have some SOB tapping on my window at the stop light wanting to sell drugs to me. That alone tells me that all the money that is and has been spent is just being flushed down the toilet. I would much rather the guberment tax it and have control over at least some of it at least, and if it takes billions of dollars away from the cartels and thugs then so be it at least they will have to down size there operations.
There is a reason why you can't turn your head or take a piss without looking at a slot machine. The casinos in Vegas would not pay to have them placed everywhere if they were not being used
With PROPER government control it wouldn't be like that more like a state liquor store. I would never, nor endorse, or could I ever see drugs being distributive like that.
But the sad truth is it is they are readily available. As I posted earlier some parts of the city I cant go to the gas station with out having 1/2 dozen hood rats running up to me wanting to sell drugs. I have by accident got off the wrong freeway off ramp in Atlanta and have some SOB tapping on my window at the stop light wanting to sell drugs to me.
I don't believe that this defines "readily available". Soda, gasoline, cigarettes, beer, toilet paper are readily available. Reading your and other posts, one can imagine that there is a drug dealer on every corner of every city in the US. Drugs are pervasive and accessible to those who want them but far from "readily available" for an opportunistic user.
Thomas M-4
06-08-11, 00:34
I don't believe that this defines "readily available". Soda, gasoline, cigarettes, beer, toilet paper are readily available. Reading your and other posts, one can imagine that there is a drug dealer on every corner of every city in the US. Drugs are pervasive and accessible to those who want them but far from "readily available" for an opportunistic user.
How else do you want to judge it being readily available???:confused:
Back in the day when I was a stupid ass teenager :o I knew were to find drugs if I so chose too [never did but none the less I knew]:(. Getting hard alcohol on the other hand was harder to come by.
Have you ever had a hood rat asking you if want to buy some alcohol , if so that's news to me.
How else do you want to judge it being readily available???:confused:
Back in the day when I was a stupid ass teenager :o I knew were to find drugs if I so chose too [never did but none the less I knew]:(. Getting hard alcohol on the other hand was harder to come by.
Have you ever had a hood rat asking you if want to buy some alcohol , if so that's news to me.
I also never had a hood rat asking me if I wanted to buy some drugs, despite having worked on Chicago's westside for years. Must be my imposing figure:p
OTC meds are an example of ready availability.
Speaking of OTC meds, a relevant example is what happened with pseudo-ephedrine containing preparations. They were readily available from every corner pharmacy, and then their abuse rates became rampant once few chemical reactions got worked out on a kitchen level. Hardly a good example how easy access decreased prevalence of abuse.
Thomas M-4
06-08-11, 00:52
IDK maybe it depends on the vehicle that you drive. :jester:
Or maybe you scare all of them off with you masculine physic :p
My son who is in middle school said unless I allowed him to take a beer from the fridge, it is WAAAYYYY easier to get dope than a 6 pack. This speaks miles!! This war on drugs is a joke...here is what is in my daily paper & what those of us who call home are dealing with constantly.
Todays headlines on themonitor.com:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEA: Zetas-Gulf split likely boosting pot traffic through Valley
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/pot-51422-shift-article.html
~~~~~~~~~
Cartel shootout reported near Los Indios bridge
http://www.themonitor.com/news/-51439--.html
~~~~~~~~~
429 bodies found so far in 2 north Mexico states
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/states-51424-says-drug.html
~~~~~~~~~
High-powered ammo destined for Mexico found in San Juan
http://www.themonitor.com/news/juan-51443-san-mexico.html
~~~~~~~~~
American, Mexican officials talk border security at mayors conference in Weslaco
http://www.themonitor.com/news/weslaco-51441-security-talk.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, let's just keep on doing what hasn't worked...fantastic idea, it's been such a success!! This is just today's headlines.
I cannot comprehend why anyone does not want consider another angle and acknowledge failure. Talk about a face palm.
carry on...
.
Speaking of OTC meds, a relevant example is what happened with pseudo-ephedrine containing preparations. They were readily available from every corner pharmacy, and then their abuse rates became rampant once few chemical reactions got worked out on a kitchen level. Hardly a good example how easy access decreased prevalence of abuse.
This is not due to the prevalence of pseudoephedrine but is in fact a byproduct of the war on drugs. With the cocaine supply being limited by the government it drives up prices to a prohibitive level, unless you're the CIA importing it, drug distributors found a cheaper, easier to obtain, more efficient way to give people the high they wanted. In turn it's a much more addictive and harmful substance than good ol' regular Columbian grown but supply and demand rules the drug market, just ask the guys building submarines and tanks down south.
The only professional group I have seen which ostracizes addicts and sees them as a professional embarrassment more than physicians is law enforcement. Both groups tend to cling to the long-held perception of addiction as weakness and moral failure, bringing shame upon their fellows and damaging their status in the public's eye. Such attitudes create an atmosphere which further motivates the addict to conceal their behavior, discourages them from seeking treatment, and offers little or no support for the recovering addict.
If the addiction came from legitimate medical use I can see your point. If not then it is absolutely a weakness/moral failure and I could give a **** if they get treatment, support, recover or get a bullet to the back of the head. There is no room for someone who can't be trusted in a profession where other peoples lives are on the line.
My son who is in middle school said unless I allowed him to take a beer from the fridge, it is WAAAYYYY easier to get dope than a 6 pack. This speaks miles!! This war on drugs is a joke...here is what is in my daily paper & what those of us who call home are dealing with constantly.
Yeah, let's just keep on doing what hasn't worked...fantastic idea, it's been such a success!! This is just today's headlines.
I cannot comprehend why anyone does not want consider another angle and acknowledge failure. Talk about a face palm.
carry on...
Artos,
You've either not read the entire thread, or you're completely mischaracterizing what lanesmith, YVK, and I are saying.
I agree with you that the war is a JOKE. It's not a true war. What is going on now is a sham. You cannot control a substance getting into your country if you don't even know who is entering the country. It's as much of a joke as our immigration policy/control.
I believe lanesmith and I have expressed some libertarian views on legalizing drugs. I agree with decriminalization on the user end. But, the devil is in the details. Some of the libertarians in this discussion favor full legalization, while others, not as libertarian, are saying that we should legalize, but have the government control/regulate its access. Some only want to legalize marijuana, but not other drugs. So to what extent do we legalize? Portugal, a favorite example used by those who want to legalize, doesn't really have true legalization...via lanesmith:
I have read the reports. None of them describe a situation where drugs are completely legalized and open to industry like Chad and you describe. In fact, there is no country that has tried this approach as trafficking and selling hard drugs such has heroin and crack is still illegal in the Netherlands, Portugal, and other countries with liberal drug laws. The reason why cocaine and meth are not running rampant in those countries is because they are still illegal and the governments still aggressively prosecute traffickers (4 years for traffic large quantities of pot and 12-16 years for trafficking hard stuff in the Netherlands). There is other unique logistical factors that limit the spread of hard drugs, but these are harder to quantify. So, please show me a country that has completely legalized all drugs, opened their production to industry, and seen their usage rates decrease. You can't because it has never happened.
Artos, I understand what you are saying, and things need to change, but do we throw up our hands and say the current system isn't working, so let's just let all of the drugs in and everything will all be better? There is also the issue of legalizing everything, yet having a nanny state who wants to take care of everyone. If we allow drug users to fail, die, then by virtue of them winning the Darwin award, we don't have to deal with supporting them (and hopefully they don't breed) and it would be a powerful motivation to stay away from drugs. That's not the case in this country now.
The argument that the current war on drugs isn't working, so we should legalize all drugs, is similar to the one that argues that the current healthcare system isn't working, so we should all go to the single payer system. Or, similar to the one that says that capitalism is failing, so we should go to communism? The details are very important in all of this. Not so long ago, our legislative branch rammed a healthcare bill down our throats and said that we'd love it, until all the details were revealed.
I don't believe anyone is against doing something different because, like you said, the current system isn't working. But, consider, what do we do, and how far do we go? Details matter.
montanadave
06-08-11, 11:47
If the addiction came from legitimate medical use I can see your point. If not then it is absolutely a weakness/moral failure and I could give a **** if they get treatment, support, recover or get a bullet to the back of the head. There is no room for someone who can't be trusted in a profession where other peoples lives are on the line.
And that is precisely the attitude which keeps many of those afflicted by addiction suffering in silence and unwilling to seek treatment.
I don't care if people suffer from poor life choices. People are afflicted by cancer, they CHOOSE to do drugs.
They add selfish to the list of moral failures by trying to keep their job while being impaired.
montanadave
06-08-11, 14:05
I don't care if people suffer from poor life choices. People are afflicted by cancer, they CHOOSE to do drugs.
They add selfish to the list of moral failures by trying to keep their job while being impaired.
Some people make lifestyle choices which significantly enhance their risk for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other diseases, including addiction.
While the contributing factors in addiction are multiple, genetics and co-coccurring mental health disorders are at the top of the list. Bottom line, some folks are at significantly greater risk for becoming an addict than others. A lot of people choose to try alcohol, tobacco, and drugs; I don't know of any that chose to become an addict.
Where do you draw the line between those who are "afflicted" and worthy of compassion versus those who asked for it and deserve whatever misery comes their way?
It seems you are drawing some very black and white distinctions in a very gray area. That's certainly your prerogative. I just disagree.
Where do you draw the line between those who are "afflicted" and worthy of compassion versus those who asked for it and deserve whatever misery comes their way?
The problem is that we are forced to help people fix their self afflicted problems. That is not compassion. That is compulsion.
No one is arguing against true compassion -- shown by people through their own free will and choice. (And something I would contribute to even if I fight compulsion to help through extorted taxes)
The highly addictive nature of hard drugs is well known. So genetics means one person will be an addict after the first time and another can "experiment" then go on to a productive life, they both knew the risks and chose to try it.
Cops and Doctors should know the downsides more than most so if they make that choice once I don't care if they get treatment, they should not be trusted with a job like that again.
How else do you want to judge it being readily available???:confused:
As he stated, an item that is "readily available" is one that can be purchased at any of several local outlets. Obtaining drugs from a likely shady dealer, if he/she even has them that day, is substantially less convenient and carries a much higher level of overall risk. Plus being able to purchase legally clearly implies a level of social acceptance, as has been done with alcohol.
No offense to you personally, but I really don't understand why this needs to be spelled out to such an extent for so many here. We don't care for blind idealism when it comes to liberals, why should it be accepted now in relation to this topic?
As he stated, an item that is "readily available" is one that can be purchased at any of several local outlets. Obtaining drugs from a likely shady dealer, if he/she even has them that day, is substantially less convenient and carries a much higher level of overall risk. Plus being able to purchase legally clearly implies a level of social acceptance, as has been done with alcohol.
No offense to you personally, but I really don't understand why this needs to be spelled out to such an extent for so many here. We don't care for blind idealism when it comes to liberals, why should it be accepted now in relation to this topic?
This definition of readily available is a bit whacked.
"Readily available" means just that. Easily gotten. Drugs today are readily available. You cannot define yourself out of that.
Being available legally does not imply any social acceptability. Tobacco is available legally but in general is not really socially acceptable any more. Same with hardcore porn (there is a reason it comes in a generic brown wrapper).
If drugs were to be made legal, their availability would go down. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but it is so. Today, drug dealers can set up basically anywhere. There are risks involved, but the payout is generous and makes it worth it. So they can set up on any street corner pretty much, in schools, etc.
If drugs were legal, prices would go down making it not worth it for the criminal element to embark on. Legal purveyors would need to be licensed (business license, possible ATF tax stamp "license" like purveyors of alcohol, drug equivalent of an "alcohol" license from the local authorities, etc), find a place willing to lease to them, and then set up a legal business. Those are much harder and difficult hoops to jump through than to just set up shop on street corners, back alleys, or in schools like they do now.
As evidence, look at medical MJ places: there are a lot fewer of them around then illegal places to buy pot.
Speaking of OTC meds, a relevant example is what happened with pseudo-ephedrine containing preparations. They were readily available from every corner pharmacy, and then their abuse rates became rampant once few chemical reactions got worked out on a kitchen level. Hardly a good example how easy access decreased prevalence of abuse.
As has been explained, this is a bad example. The prevalence of abuse is related to the ILLEGAL drug METH and similar drugs. No one is abusing pseudo-ephedrine itself. The large profit potential due to being illegal makes it worth while for criminal elements to manufacture these illegal drugs, which draw on other ingredients.
This definition of readily available is a bit whacked.
As someone who took part in certain activities as a younger man, I will assure you it is the farthest thing from. If I were doing the same today, nothing could facilitate my bad decisions more than a trusty store that I could obtain from legally. Just as they do for alcoholics.
Again, for whatever reason pure and increasingly redundant idealism is coming into play here.
As someone who took part in certain activities as a younger man, I will assure you it is the farthest thing from. If I were doing the same today, nothing could facilitate my bad decisions more than a trusty store that I could obtain from legally. Just as they do for alcoholics.
To say it might be more convenient to be able to pick a drug up at the store is not the same as saying it isn't readily available when it certainly is in a thriving black market. I never met a drug user or addict that wasn't using because it wasn't available.
As someone who took part in certain activities as a younger man, I will assure you it is the farthest thing from. If I were doing the same today, nothing could facilitate my bad decisions more than a trusty store that I could obtain from legally. Just as they do for alcoholics.
Again, for whatever reason pure and increasingly redundant idealism is coming into play here.
Not on the part of the legalization side.
The "drugs are bad and must therefore be illegal" crew gets stuck on the "drugs are bad" part [which I think we almost all agree with] and cannot see that all the efforts they make to restrict drugs have failed and in fact made the problem worse by creating a very lucrative black market that draws criminal elements in and makes things all around worse for society.
Yes, drugs are bad. However, making drugs illegal has made things a lot worse than they would otherwise be for society. It is time we recognized that.
Drugs are more available, and lead to more violence and cost to society now with them being illegal.
Like Littlelebowski kept asking. Is Mexico better off now after the huge increase in police/military efforts to stop the cartels than they were before?
Is America better off now, with drugs rampant, than we would have been had drugs never been made illegal? NO. A large part of our criminal activity revolves around control of the drug trade. Anyone who wants them can still get them easily. And huge profits are made by the criminals due to the need to service a black market instead of a legal market.
Stop the insanity.
Legal drugs will not lead to a huge increase in addiction and over the longer term would probably lead to a decrease in the percentage of population that is addicted. And it would make it easier for people who want to get help and treatment to do so.
To say it might be more convenient is not the same as saying it isn't readily available. I never met a drug user or addict that wasn't using because it wasn't available.
Then perhaps we should watch the context in which we use the personally interpretable term "readily available". This because I see it describing something that can be obtained with little obstruction and no risk.
Obtaining drugs from a dealer often poses numerous potential risks as well as obstructions that the local CVS does not. But believe what you will, I'm not looking to push the point by any means.
Then perhaps we should watch the context in which we use the personally interpretable term "readily available". This because I see it describing something that can be obtained with little obstruction and no risk.
Obtaining drugs from a dealer often poses numerous potential risks as well as obstructions that the local CVS does not. But believe what you will, I'm not looking to push the point by any means.
Why do you think that CVS would start selling hard drugs if they were legal? (Lets assume the same level of licensing and taxation as alcohol).
Why do you think that CVS would start selling hard drugs if they were legal? (Lets assume the same level of licensing and taxation as alcohol).
I used CVS as an example. But if not there, maybe tell us where else you see the drugs being dispensed. How about Jack's Hard Core Drug Shoppe? So long as there are ample outlets, what's the difference?
You're nitpicking to support what I personally see to be an unsustainable, ideologically based point.
I used CVS as an example. But if not there, maybe tell us where else you see the drugs being dispensed. How about Jack's Hard Core Drug Shoppe? So long as there are ample outlets, what's the difference?
yes, more likely something like that. There is a big difference between an occasional Jacks Hard Core Drug Shoppe and a large chain of pharmacies.
We already have Jacks Hard Core Drug Shoppe offering high availability and ready supply of drugs in most areas (in an illegal fashion, which has not stopped them)
You're nitpicking to support what I personally see to be an unsustainable, ideologically based point.
More likely that is what you are engaging in. The evidence is ample that your prohibition side has failed. This has little to do with ideologies for many of us (though that is the back drop) but rather good sustainable solutions to the problems facing us. Drug legalization is a sustainable solution to the problem. Prohibition has already failed.
ForTehNguyen
06-08-11, 19:10
to make things clear advocating the legalization of drugs doesn't mean the advocation of the use of drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are legal now and I dont use either. If it all suddenly was legalized tomorrow, honestly, who here would line up at the stores to get some? The people who dont use drugs now arent going to suddenly start using them. People who want to use them already use them now despite them being illegal.
yes, more likely something like that. There is a big difference between an occasional Jacks Hard Core Drug Shoppe and a large chain of pharmacies.
Who says they or their type are so occasional in your idealogical future? How do you have so many unknown parameters that clearly defined?
We already have Jacks Hard Core Drug Shoppe offering high availability and ready supply of drugs in most areas (in an illegal fashion, which has not stopped them)
No, we don't. Just random drug dealers.
Prohibition has already failed.
Prohibition failed because the alcohol based pluses outweighed the minuses to society, so to speak. Most people are in fact able to enjoy a few drinks without hurting either themselves or those around them. This is the extremely crucial point you are choosing to overlook due to your idealogical stance.
Who says they or their type are so occasional in your idealogical future? How do you have so many unknown parameters that clearly defined?
Look at package stores in states that allow private alcohol sales. They are not on every corner. Look at cigarette specialty stores. Neither are they.
Since we are not debating specific proposals that go in to detail, certain assumptions are made, like "drug" stores being licensed and regulated similarly to alcohol selling establishments (business license, liquor license, ATF tax stamp, etc). Plus they have to be capitalized, get leases, and overcome public stigmas and pressure of NIMBY.
It is fair to say that such places will be occasional based on that criteria.
No, we don't. Just random drug dealers.
aka Jacks Hard Drug Shoppe. Ie, there are already ample places to buy drugs.
Prohibition failed because the alcohol based pluses outweighed the minuses to society, so to speak. Most people are in fact able to enjoy a few drinks without hurting either themselves or those around them. This is the extremely crucial point you are choosing to overlook due to your idealogical stance.
Is Drug Prohibition failing for the same reason? Do drugs plusses outweigh the minuses to society?
Prohibition (the tried alcohol one) failed due to the fact that it made it extremely profitable to take the risk of running afoul LE in order to provide it. High risk drove high reward.
Drug prohibition has failed for exactly the same reason, but we are too dumb and ideologically impaired to realize it.
The drug legalization camp is not bound by ideology. While ideology may have stirred the argument, the argument is made on sound economic principles, common sense, history, and other examples, It is a pragmatic approach to the problems society faces due to failed drug prohibition. Some are driven by ideology, but the discussion put forth here has mostly been non ideological (arguments are not ideological, whether or not a person came to the conclusion through ideology) and rather practical.
Drug prohibitionists on the other hand are bound by ideology and are incapable of divorcing themselves from that ideology. They are bound to the ideology of "drugs are bad and must therefore be prohibited" even that that has been a monumental, costly failure that has ruined countless lives and cost a huge fortune with no success. The arguments put forth here are slaves to that ideology.
The evidence is ample that your prohibition side has failed. This has little to do with ideologies for many of us (though that is the back drop) but rather good sustainable solutions to the problems facing us. Drug legalization is a sustainable solution to the problem. Prohibition has already failed.
The biggest problem facing the US is not cartel violence or crowded prisons. The big problem is 15% of Americans suffering some form of significant addiction making them wards of the state at a time when we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, 1.5 trillion deficit, and 60-100 trillion of unfunded future liabilities.
I've heard theories of how hard drug legalization will bankrupt the cartels, empty the prisons, and save us billions in enforcement costs. However, I'm still waiting to hear how drug legalization is going to reduce that number of 15%. How are less people going to use drugs when the price goes down and exposure increases for millions of Americans not living in a ghetto? Keep in mind that countries such as Portugal have kept strict trafficking laws and use government sponsored, coerced rehab to control usage. Also, states with the most relaxed marijuana laws such as Oregon and Alaska have higher rates of usage. This leads me to think that your plan of complete legalization will not be healthy for our economy.
The biggest problem facing the US is not cartel violence or crowded prisons.
That is open to debate. The cost to society of the violence (not just cartel violence, but gang violence, urban rot, etc due to the drug trade is a huge problem on society, as is the enormous cost of prohibition, both direct in enforcement and indirect. AND the bigger cost is the loss of freedom due to all the laws and crap that are passed due to this. Think gun laws.
The big problem is 15% of Americans suffering some form of significant addiction making them wards of the state at a time when we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, 1.5 trillion deficit, and 60-100 trillion of unfunded future liabilities.
I've heard theories of how hard drug legalization will bankrupt the cartels, empty the prisons, and save us billions in enforcement costs. However, I'm still waiting to hear how drug legalization is going to reduce that number of 15%. How are less people going to use drugs when the price goes down and exposure increases for millions of Americans not living in a ghetto? Keep in mind that countries such as Portugal have kept strict trafficking laws and use government sponsored, coerced rehab to control usage. Also, states with the most relaxed marijuana laws such as Oregon and Alaska have higher rates of usage. This leads me to think that your plan of complete legalization will not be healthy for our economy.
I am throwing it right back at you. I am wanting to know exactly how this 15% you mention is being affected and reduced by the current prohibition regime.
You claim "increased exposure" but provide no support of that. It is likely that exposure would go down, not be increased. You would not have pushers in the schools getting them young, applying peer pressure. There would not be the "allure" of doing something illegal to get a thrill. Drug sources would be better regulated and controlled, and probably a lot less outlets for drugs due to licensing and regulation.
And drugs are not just a ghetto problem.
Like Littlelebowski kept asking. Is Mexico better off now after the huge increase in police/military efforts to stop the cartels than they were before?
Littlelebowski also said this....that means that the war on meth, cocaine, and heroin still remains. Unless we decriminalize all drugs for personal use, but still make it illegal to traffic the stuff. He didn't clarify his position when I asked earlier.
I am pretty much only for the legalization of pot.
Do you guys think we are winning or holding a line in the war on drugs? Do you think that our citizens suffer collateral damage as a result?
Lanesmith, what was Mexico's drug and violence like before Calderon took over and declared militarized war on drugs? Is Mexico better off now?
Is America better off now, with drugs rampant, than we would have been had drugs never been made illegal? NO. A large part of our criminal activity revolves around control of the drug trade. Anyone who wants them can still get them easily. And huge profits are made by the criminals due to the need to service a black market instead of a legal market.
Stop the insanity.
Legal drugs will not lead to a huge increase in addiction and over the longer term would probably lead to a decrease in the percentage of population that is addicted. And it would make it easier for people who want to get help and treatment to do so.
The difficulty obtaining drugs for those who haven't started using them makes it more difficult to start experimenting with them.
Chad, there is also a big difference between medical marijuana dispensaries, where you still need a Rx to buy the stuff, and what you're proposing, which is outright legalization via Jacks Hard Core Drug Shoppe.
Thomas M-4
06-08-11, 22:22
The biggest problem facing the US is not cartel violence or crowded prisons. The big problem is 15% of Americans suffering some form of significant addiction making them wards of the state at a time when we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, 1.5 trillion deficit, and 60-100 trillion of unfunded future liabilities.
I've heard theories of how hard drug legalization will bankrupt the cartels, empty the prisons, and save us billions in enforcement costs. However, I'm still waiting to hear how drug legalization is going to reduce that number of 15%. How are less people going to use drugs when the price goes down and exposure increases for millions of Americans not living in a ghetto? Keep in mind that countries such as Portugal have kept strict trafficking laws and use government sponsored, coerced rehab to control usage. Also, states with the most relaxed marijuana laws such as Oregon and Alaska have higher rates of usage. This leads me to think that your plan of complete legalization will not be healthy for our economy.
They can very easily be priced to what they are going for on the street now. Cigarettes go for almost $10 bucks in certain parts of the country. All you would have to do is tax it to death. Also another example would be to ban it from being used at all public places [much the same as cigarettes] no smoking in public places.
To say it might be more convenient to be able to pick a drug up at the store is not the same as saying it isn't readily available when it certainly is in a thriving black market. I never met a drug user or addict that wasn't using because it wasn't available.
To start using, you need to have a source.
The fewer the sources, the more difficult it is to start.
Once, you're an addict, you have a reliable source. You know who else is doing it, so you can find other sources from your drug buddies.
Those of us who don't do the shit, have no clue where to start. I suppose I could roll up to the shittiest part of South Tucson at night and start asking, but I sure as hell won't do that because I'll probably get beat up and robbed.
The difficulty obtaining drugs for those who haven't started using them makes it more difficult to start experimenting with them.
In almost any place in this country, there is almost no difficulty in obtaining drugs including hard drugs. Anyone who wants to experiment with them can. Now. With the current prohibition regime. Which has failed miserably.
Chad, there is also a big difference between medical marijuana dispensaries, where you still need a Rx to buy the stuff, and what you're proposing, which is outright legalization via Jacks Hard Core Drug Shoppe.
Yes, but the point of them not popping up everywhere is still valid. They have certain hoops they have to jump through (and would have more hoops like ATF tax stamp etc or similar if legalized since these operate outside FED law anyway). They are still a lot rarer than the illegal outlets. Needing an Rx to get the MJ is not relevant to the point.
I was not making the point that the medical MJ dispensaries make it easier or harder for normal folks to get access to MJ and the rate of which people buy it. I was talking about the actual distribution of the places versus illegal places to get MJ.
To start using, you need to have a source.
The fewer the sources, the more difficult it is to start.
Which is why legalization makes sense. It will restrict the sources. Guaranteed. Starting a business takes capital, licenses, taxes, etc. Lot bigger barrier to entry than there is now.
Once, you're an addict, you have a reliable source. You know who else is doing it, so you can find other sources from your drug buddies.
Those of us who don't do the shit, have no clue where to start. I suppose I could roll up to the shittiest part of South Tucson at night and start asking, but I sure as hell won't do that because I'll probably get beat up and robbed.
From a perspective of economics, violence, and even policy, legalizing just cannabis makes no sense. You just drive the criminal element into pushing hard drugs even more.
Those of us who don't do the shit, have no clue where to start. I suppose I could roll up to the shittiest part of South Tucson at night and start asking, but I sure as hell won't do that because I'll probably get beat up and robbed.
I am sure you could find some if you really wanted it.
I know when I was in HS (and I am class of 84) and grew up in a semi-rural part of New England in a regional HS, not in an urban area, it was easy to get pot and harder drugs. It would not have been hard for me then and I am sure it is easier now in the schools (from what I have heard discussed).
(And no, I did not take drugs or try them at all -- I don't even drink at all. But even I, Honor Society, Band, math team nerd, knew who to ask).
Same with hardcore porn (there is a reason it comes in a generic brown wrapper).
By the way, I would make the argument that easier access to porn, via the internet, has increased usage and created many porn addicts. Addicts and casual experimenters are far less likely to want to make the trek to Jack's Hardcore Sex Shoppe to buy/rent a video.
:jester:
Which is why legalization makes sense. It will restrict the sources. Guaranteed. Starting a business takes capital, licenses, taxes, etc. Lot bigger barrier to entry than there is now.
I thought libertarians were against government regulations and barriers to business.
After all, the selling cocaine, heroin, and meth would be a legitimate business under your proposal.
I am sure you could find some if you really wanted it.
I know when I was in HS (and I am class of 84) and grew up in a semi-rural part of New England in a regional HS, not in an urban area, it was easy to get pot and harder drugs. It would not have been hard for me then and I am sure it is easier now in the schools (from what I have heard discussed).
(And no, I did not take drugs or try them at all -- I don't even drink at all. But even I, Honor Society, Band, math team nerd, knew who to ask).
This begs the question, who really sets out "really wanting" to try an illegal substance. It has to be introduced to you by a dealer or someone already using. There is a certain "taboo" to starting.
Regarding the second half of your comment, about you not taking drugs or trying them at all, I believe it makes you less qualified to comment about the behavior of young people who do drugs, than say, Safetyhit, who has done things in his youth (by his own admission). The one thing I've learned about people in my 10 years of practice, is that they'll never cease to amaze me in the ways that they engage in completely illogical and self-destructive behaviors. It saddens me to say it, but bad behavior and acts of stupidity are frequently the norm, not the exception.
Artos,
You've either not read the entire thread, or you're completely mischaracterizing what lanesmith, YVK, and I are saying.
I agree with you that the war is a JOKE. It's not a true war. What is going on now is a sham. You cannot control a substance getting into your country if you don't even know who is entering the country. It's as much of a joke as our immigration policy/control.
I believe lanesmith and I have expressed some libertarian views on legalizing drugs. I agree with decriminalization on the user end. But, the devil is in the details. Some of the libertarians in this discussion favor full legalization, while others, not as libertarian, are saying that we should legalize, but have the government control/regulate its access. Some only want to legalize marijuana, but not other drugs. So to what extent do we legalize? Portugal, a favorite example used by those who want to legalize, doesn't really have true legalization...via lanesmith:
Artos, I understand what you are saying, and things need to change, but do we throw up our hands and say the current system isn't working, so let's just let all of the drugs in and everything will all be better? There is also the issue of legalizing everything, yet having a nanny state who wants to take care of everyone. If we allow drug users to fail, die, then by virtue of them winning the Darwin award, we don't have to deal with supporting them (and hopefully they don't breed) and it would be a powerful motivation to stay away from drugs. That's not the case in this country now.
The argument that the current war on drugs isn't working, so we should legalize all drugs, is similar to the one that argues that the current healthcare system isn't working, so we should all go to the single payer system. Or, similar to the one that says that capitalism is failing, so we should go to communism? The details are very important in all of this. Not so long ago, our legislative branch rammed a healthcare bill down our throats and said that we'd love it, until all the details were revealed.
I don't believe anyone is against doing something different because, like you said, the current system isn't working. But, consider, what do we do, and how far do we go? Details matter.
Ok, so how many of you would build a privacy fence on your 1 acre property and leave one section large enough to drive a tractor through w/out an objective??
That is the deal down here...the feds put up a fence from bownsville to la joya, then leave a 12 mile gap in the most dense brush from sullivan city to rio grande city saying it is for farmer and rancher access?? come on...this is insulting. You guys are argueing over dope vs meth legalization. Start somewhere?? The amount of pot compared to the other hard stuff is like comparing the sand on the beaches to your sandbags on the bench. We are a nation of pot heads. Legalize dope or legalize it all, my concerns lie with the lives affected and trying something different. Nobody is telling you we have to change our morals or standards. Drowning in your own vomit or killing your liver from too much tequila is OK, but a heart attack from cocain or meth is evil?? Hell, our troops protect the opium trade in a round about way in the sandbox. I'm pissed!!
My complaint is personal as most are argueing over fly crap in the pepper...i see the lives affected and grown men fearing going to work and traveling on their land on both sides of the border.
You guys piss and moan over the what if's while we are dodging the lead...the feds do not want the border secure or the flow to stop & until fly over country comes to grips with this, tx, nm, az and cali are on our own along the border.
stick your finger or your tongue in the socket...i really don't care but the only solution i see to put these thugs out of biz is to take over the market. Hell, starting with dope is 90%+ of the product...that would knock most of the lower end cartel members out to the curb.
http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/
The current direction we are taking sucks but those in power do not want it to change imho. Way too many people making a lots of money 'trying' to stop a demand that will not go away and really assist the cartels with the reach around.
rant over...
montanadave
06-09-11, 09:48
Yet another article citing evidence of the futility of the billions of Federal dollars being pissed down a rat hole in the WOD:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-narco-contract-20110609,0,1742011.story
As is usually the case when it comes to government spending, it is illuminating to "follow the money." From the article cited above:
"The majority of U.S. counter-narcotics contracts are awarded to five companies: DynCorp, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ITT and ARINC, according to the report for the contracting oversight subcommittee, part of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Counter-narcotics contract spending increased 32% over the five-year period, from $482 million in 2005 to $635 million in 2009. DynCorp, based in Falls Church, Va., received the largest total, $1.1 billion."
There ain't just a lot of cash being made by selling drugs. There's a lot of folks getting rich off fighting those same drugs. What a cluster****!
As has been explained, this is a bad example. The prevalence of abuse is related to the ILLEGAL drug METH and similar drugs. No one is abusing pseudo-ephedrine itself. The large profit potential due to being illegal makes it worth while for criminal elements to manufacture these illegal drugs, which draw on other ingredients.
I don't agree, Chad. You are not suggesting that drug cartels are using the CVS as a supplier for their meth industry? The run on legal pseudophed was not driven by drug industry, but by end-users who found an easy way of getting a substance that's readily converted to meth. As such, a legally available substance has contributed to an increased prevalence of meth use by supplying an alternative source of meth.
The only applicability of your economic intervention would be if street price of meth would drop below legal price of pseudophed.Do you see that happen?
So, the current rates for criminalized substances use are all under 3% - opiate(annual prevalence) is 0.6%, cocaine 2.5%, meth 2.8%.
Prevalence of decriminalized addictive substances use are: alcohol is 52% and tobacco I already mentioned at 10-25%. Of interest, the rate of alcoholism is about 8%, which means that rate of conversion from use to addiction for alcohol is about 16%.
For the pro-legal drug crowd, what's your projection on rates of experimentation with hard drugs if they were legal? What's your projection of conversion rates from experimentation to addiction, knowing that these drugs have higher addictive potential than alcohol?
I don't agree, Chad. You are not suggesting that drug cartels are using the CVS as a supplier for their meth industry?
The small time meth makers are. Your example is deeply flawed and has no relevance on legalization as I explained.
Mom and pop meth users are not buy p-e from CVS and making their own meth. Small time local manufacturers/dealers are buying it, making meth, and selling it. Due to the illegality of meth, the price is high and the profit margin high which makes the risk they take worth it.
The run on legal pseudophed was not driven by drug industry, but by end-users who found an easy way of getting a substance that's readily converted to meth. As such, a legally available substance has contributed to an increased prevalence of meth use by supplying an alternative source of meth.
The only applicability of your economic intervention would be if street price of meth would drop below legal price of pseudophed.Do you see that happen?
So, the current rates for criminalized substances use are all under 3% - opiate(annual prevalence) is 0.6%, cocaine 2.5%, meth 2.8%.
Prevalence of decriminalized addictive substances use are: alcohol is 52% and tobacco I already mentioned at 10-25%. Of interest, the rate of alcoholism is about 8%, which means that rate of conversion from use to addiction for alcohol is about 16%.
For the pro-legal drug crowd, what's your projection on rates of experimentation with hard drugs if they were legal? What's your projection of conversion rates from experimentation to addiction, knowing that these drugs have higher addictive potential than alcohol?
For the pro-legal drug crowd, what's your projection on rates of experimentation with hard drugs if they were legal? What's your projection of conversion rates from experimentation to addiction, knowing that these drugs have higher addictive potential than alcohol?
I don't think anyone has any solid data -- any estimates are just pie in the sky. I would doubt the experimentation rates would change that much due to the lower availability when drugs are legalized.
I don't think anyone has any solid data -- any estimates are just pie in the sky. I would doubt the experimentation rates would change that much due to the lower availability when drugs are legalized.
I am losing you here, bud - the prevalence of use, experimentation rates (casual ETOH consumption is 13%) and availability of legalized addictive substances (ETOH and tobacco) are multiple times more than illegal ones. Are you willing to write it all off to historical factors and leave nothing to easy opportunistic use?
I am losing you here, bud - the prevalence of use, experimentation rates (casual ETOH consumption is 13%) and availability of legalized addictive substances (ETOH and tobacco) are multiple times more than illegal ones. Are you willing to write it all off to historical factors and leave nothing to easy opportunistic use?
People have ben drinking alcohol and using tobacco for ages. Alcohol has been in use for many thousands of years. Tobacco for hundreds at least if not thousands. It has been commonly accepted as normal to do so. It is cultural to do so.
Hard drugs are not cultural. They have a social stigma against them. There is not a widespread historical and cultural use of them.
Why should that change in any great fashion? Before these drugs were made illegal (a recent phenomenon) they were not culturally and socially acceptable and in high use.
Legalization would limit the outlets where drugs are available to properly licensed businesses, thus lower availability (granted, the risk involved would also go down). Legalization does not lend acceptability or cultural acceptance or reduce the social stigma. The FDA or the AMA or any other recognized or official group is not going to come out and say it is now ok and healthy to do so. Companies are still going to drug test workers. Etc.
to make things clear advocating the legalization of drugs doesn't mean the advocation of the use of drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are legal now and I dont use either. If it all suddenly was legalized tomorrow, honestly, who here would line up at the stores to get some? The people who dont use drugs now arent going to suddenly start using them. People who want to use them already use them now despite them being illegal.
This is what is commonly misunderstood. People think that legalization folks are going to start advocating and pushing drug use. No real credible advocate position will start popping up on TV, in magazines, etc.
Drugs are readily available and anyone who wants to experiment with them now, will, and legalization won't change that equation in any meaningful way. There is no evidence to support any other notion, that I have seen.
I am losing you here, bud - the prevalence of use, experimentation rates (casual ETOH consumption is 13%) and availability of legalized addictive substances (ETOH and tobacco) are multiple times more than illegal ones. Are you willing to write it all off to historical factors and leave nothing to easy opportunistic use?
He simply chooses to ignore the fact that simple economic principles dictate that lowering price results in increased demand and usage of a product. This is a basic economic principle that has withstood the test of time. It is examplified by the fact that AK and OR have the most lax marijuana laws, and per capita usage rates that are the highest in the nation.
He simply chooses to ignore the fact...
He chooses to ignore several relevant facts, so just let it go. Blind idealism fuels his engine along with a lack of personal experience dealing with those affected by such things. It couldn't possibly be more evident.
He simply chooses to ignore the fact that simple economic principles dictate that lowering price results in increased demand and usage of a product. This is a basic economic principle that has withstood the test of time. It is examplified by the fact that AK and OR have the most lax marijuana laws, and per capita usage rates that are the highest in the nation.
No, I am not ignoring that fact. Alcohol and tobacco have many other characteristics that make their overall usage rates not comparable to drugs.
Are you claiming that if drugs were legal that their usage would increase to that of alcohol or tobacco? (Never mind the fact that tobacco, even while widely and easily available, has DECLINED 50% over the last 30-40 years)?
He chooses to ignore several relevant facts, so just let it go. Blind idealism fuels his engine along with a lack of personal experience dealing with those affected by such things. It couldn't possibly be more evident.
Like what? I am not ignoring any other facts.
Your blind idealism fuels you just as much mine me. You ignore facts as well. Like availability would go DOWN under legalization due to reduction in outlets where it is available.
The personal affects of drugs (as in your statement: with a lack of personal experience dealing with those affected by such things) are irrelevant to the questions of availability and experimentation rates. Yes, drugs are bad. But that in no way dictates a prohibitionist position as being right and all others being wrong. Drug legalization proponents do not advocate drug use. It appears that your only support for prohibition is that drugs are bad, ergo, they must be made (or kept) illegal. That is nonsense.
There are better ways.
The prohibitionist camp has not been able to show that prohibition prevents drugs use. The facts show that it doesn't.
If drugs were legalized, over the long term, basic economics lead to the conclusion that drug use would go down due to greatly fewer outlets for drugs, and less "marketing" due to less profit potential. A lot few people would be pushing drugs.
Yes, drugs are bad. Get over it already. We agree on that. That is no argument for legal prohibition, which has been conclusively shown to be a failure. (Multiple studies, recent articles, etc show this).
---
I am under the gun on some projects so I will have less time to write in this topic and M4C in general for the next short while. I will try and reply when I can.
No, I am not ignoring that fact. Alcohol and tobacco have many other characteristics that make their overall usage rates not comparable to drugs.
It doesn't change the fact that "simple economic principles dictate that lowering price results in increased demand and usage of a product. This is a basic economic principle that has withstood the test of time. It is examplified by the fact that AK and OR have the most lax marijuana laws, and per capita usage rates that are the highest in the nation." (quoting lanesmith)
You seem to cherry pick facts, citing the successes of ending Prohibition and quasi-legalization of drugs in Portugal when it is appropriate for supporting your argument, and quickly calling the arguments of others "deeply flawed" when examples using the same sources are against your views. You argue economics in support of legalization, yet when faced with the fact that lowering prices always increases demand, you say that hard drugs have a different standard applied to them.
Are you claiming that if drugs were legal that their usage would increase to that of alcohol or tobacco? (Never mind the fact that tobacco, even while widely and easily available, has DECLINED 50% over the last 30-40 years)?
We don't know what would happen if hard drugs were suddenly legalized. Neither do you. You think you do, but you DON'T. We can only argue based off of statistics of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol was in use before prohibition (had centuries of historical significance), and this could be why prohibition failed. However, you can't argue that ending prohibition declined the rate of use of alcohol. The end of prohibition increased access, increased social acceptance, and likely increased the percentage of alcohol consumers versus when prohibition was in effect (I don't have hard data here).
YVK has cited a lot of good data on usage rates and addiction rates. I think they're very important points to consider.
There is a possibility that tobacco use has declined for several reasons and not just because of legalization. One likely explanation is the heavy taxation, because increasing the prices will reduce the demand...basic economics. There's also the possibility that many cigarette smokers are moving to marijuana. I know of many cigarette smokers that used to only smoke cigarettes and now mostly smoke marijuana in private, but smoke cigarettes in public.
It doesn't change the fact that "simple economic principles dictate that lowering price results in increased demand and usage of a product. This is a basic economic principle that has withstood the test of time. It is examplified by the fact that AK and OR have the most lax marijuana laws, and per capita usage rates that are the highest in the nation." (quoting lanesmith)
You seem to cherry pick facts, citing the successes of ending Prohibition and quasi-legalization of drugs in Portugal when it is appropriate for supporting your argument, and quickly calling the arguments of others "deeply flawed" when examples using the same sources are against your views. You argue economics in support of legalization, yet when faced with the fact that lowering prices always increases demand, you say that hard drugs have a different standard applied to them.
First, I have never mentioned Portugal. Other may have and I should have: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 . The data from Portugal are much more relevant than Tobacco data.
Second, decreasing price meaning increasing demand only applies when nothing else in the equation changes. Legalization is a very big equation change so you cannot unequivocally say that lowering price will automatically mean increased demand.
I am not cherry picking facts. I am looking at the big picture, not some picture blinded by prohibition ideology.
We don't know what would happen if hard drugs were suddenly legalized. Neither do you. You think you do, but you DON'T. We can only argue based off of statistics of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol was in use before prohibition (had centuries of historical significance), and this could be why prohibition failed. However, you can't argue that ending prohibition declined the rate of use of alcohol. The end of prohibition increased access, increased social acceptance, and likely increased the percentage of alcohol consumers versus when prohibition was in effect (I don't have hard data here).
As you said, Alcohol had long historical and cultural usage, which most likely influenced its use after prohibition.
However, the cost to society went down significantly.
Using Alcohol to forecast hard drug usage is very flawed.
We can only argue based off of statistics of alcohol and tobacco.
Why do you say this? We can use economic models that take into account availability (which will go down with legalization based on their being many less outlets for distribution than currently), marketing (pushing), etc.
Alcohol was in use before prohibition (had centuries of historical significance), and this could be why prohibition failed.
No, Prohibition failed for the reason all prohibitionist things fail -- they create black markets which attract people interested in high returns to feed the black markets. It does not matter what is banned. As long as people want it (drugs, alcohol, porn, abortions, guns, etc) someone will fill that need. (not all the items I list follow the same dynamic so you cannot make statements on use or availability of drugs say, based on porn that might be banned in an area but all these things spur black markets)
YVK has cited a lot of good data on usage rates and addiction rates. I think they're very important points to consider.
There is a possibility that tobacco use has declined for several reasons and not just because of legalization. One likely explanation is the heavy taxation, because increasing the prices will reduce the demand...basic economics. There's also the possibility that many cigarette smokers are moving to marijuana. I know of many cigarette smokers that used to only smoke cigarettes and now mostly smoke marijuana in private, but smoke cigarettes in public.
Taxation of cigarettes plays a role. One of the biggest reasons, however, in my estimation, is the societal acceptance of smoking and societal encouragement of smoking, plus education. Smoking has been going down long before the recent spikes in taxation of cigarettes.
If drugs were legalized, over the long term, basic economics lead to the conclusion that drug use would go down due to greatly fewer outlets for drugs, and less "marketing" due to less profit potential. A lot few people would be pushing drugs.
There may be fewer outlets, but the one big outlet will draw a much bigger clientele. For example, ten small neighborhood mom and pop mini-markets serving a five mile radius versus one Walmart Supercenter. Yes, if you remove the 10 mini-markets, and put in the one SuperCenter, you've decreased the number of outlets, but the one outlet is a big attraction. Now take that example and imagine 10 small-time dealers, somewhat hard to identify, versus the example you mentioned earlier of Jack's Hard Core Drug Shoppe that is an actual business with a storefront.
I'm not a drug user, but if I had the urge to experiment, I wouldn't know where to start. Yes, I can try, but the risks are higher. Safetyhit has verified this from past experience. Also, if you're trying to score drugs from shady dealers in shitty neighborhoods, the odds of you having something bad happen to you is much higher. However, if the local drug supercenter was there, I would much rather go to the local hard drug supercenter than have to find some guy on the street and attempt a brush pass. Instead of having to drive into bad neighborhoods and asking shady characters who is selling dope/coke, just pull up to your local drug superstore. The latter represents far less risk and far easier access.
All we would be doing is replacing 10 shady dealers with one big drug business, with a nice storefront, parking spaces, and desirable shopping experience. This doesn't qualify as reducing access.
First, I have never mentioned Portugal. Other may have and I should have: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 . The data from Portugal are much more relevant than Tobacco data.
I am not against decriminalization. We are talking about legalization here, no? It is still illegal to traffic drugs in Portugal.
Second, decreasing price meaning increasing demand only applies when nothing else in the equation changes. Legalization is a very big equation change so you cannot unequivocally say that lowering price will automatically mean increased demand.
Yes, the accuracy of that relationship does depend on various factors.
But, legalization will increase supply. Which in turn decreases the price, resulting in a positive influence on demand until a new equilibrium is reached. It's been over 15 years since I've taken an econ test, and I am admittedly out of practice because it isn't my area of expertise, but I did manage to graduate with a minor in economics.
Decriminalization in Portugal means that the supply is still being restricted by the government and law enforcement. The addicts are merely caught and forced/encouraged to rehab. The legalization scenario you describe is completely different.
I am not cherry picking facts. I am looking at the big picture, not some picture blinded by prohibition ideology.
I am trying to avoid making this personal, but my eyes are quite open and I am considering all sides of the argument. However, it's so obvious that you are so blinded by pro-legalization ideology that no one can get a point in on you.
Using Alcohol to forecast hard drug usage is very flawed.
And so is trying to use decriminalization of drug use in Portugal as an argument in support of outright legalization in the United States of America.
Thomas M-4
06-10-11, 23:22
I am not against decriminalization. We are talking about legalization here, no? It is still illegal to traffic drugs in Portugal.
Yes, the accuracy of that relationship does depend on various factors.
But, legalization will increase supply. Which in turn decreases the price, resulting in a positive influence on demand until a new equilibrium is reached. It's been over 15 years since I've taken an econ test, and I am admittedly out of practice because it isn't my area of expertise, but I did manage to graduate with a minor in economics.
Decriminalization in Portugal means that the supply is still being restricted by the government and law enforcement. The addicts are merely caught and forced/encouraged to rehab. The legalization scenario you describe is completely different.
I am trying to avoid making this personal, but my eyes are quite open and I am considering all sides of the argument. However, it's so obvious that you are so blinded by pro-legalization ideology that no one can get a point in on you.
And so is trying to use decriminalization of drug use in Portugal as an argument in support of outright legalization in the United States of America.
:confused::rolleyes: Why do you keep saying the prices will drop?
It would be priced to what they are going for on the street its called TAX!!!
Next time you have a chance ask a cigarette smoker to look under his pack of cigarettes normally there are 2 stamps one state and one county that means the distributor have payed the TAX on that pack of cigarettes which intern means the buyer is going to be paying the tax on that pack of cigarettes that he /or she bought. Hard liqueur used to have a TAX stamp on the cap in AL but for what ever reason [If I had to guess it would be that bootlegged booze is not really a problem any more and they stopped the stamping process to save a buck] they stopped the stamping of bottle caps but the TAX$$ you pay $till remain the $ame.
The argument about pricing is crap it doesn't cost $5 bucks [in most parts of the conus] to make a pack of cigarettes in some places its almost $10 for a pack. Tax is a way for the government to control something that they don't really want the general population doing. That is why us gun owners pay a NFA TAX for some of our toys so we don't run a foul of the law and pay a bigger price.
Are you claiming that if drugs were legal that their usage would increase to that of alcohol or tobacco? (Never mind the fact that tobacco, even while widely and easily available, has DECLINED 50% over the last 30-40 years)?
Of course I'm not claiming an increase in drug use to the prevalence of alcohol or tobacco. I am claiming that drug usage would most likely increase relative to current rates of drug usage. This is based on the economic principle that the demand of a commodity increase when the price of that same commodity decreases.
Another interesting factoid that I learned while researching for this threat is that drug demand, like other addictive behaviors and substances, is elastic to price. That means that small decreases in the street price of drugs, results in a significant increase in usage rates (as seen when crack came on to the seen in the late 1980's as a cheaper alternative to powered cocaine). On the other hand, demand and usage only decreases slightly when the street price of drugs increases significantly. This is because high drug prices are a small disincentive for drug experimentation, but habitual users will still pay the higher prices due to their addiction. This is a big reason for the WOD being seen as a failure - you have to massively increase the price of street drugs through effective interdiction in order to see an appreciable decline in usage. The phenomenon of elastic demand is also seen with alcohol usage, smoking, and gambling with significance that parallels the strength of the addition (i.e. a crack head will pawn their baby for another rock, but a smoker will not).
The main point is that whenever there has been a significant decrease in the price of street drugs, availability, prevalence, and usage have increased. This effect can only be overcome with strict regulation such as coerced rehabilitation (i.e. break the market) which I'd imagine clash with your libertarian beliefs. It would also make commercialization of the drug trade, something you have proposed as an alternative, very difficult.
:confused::rolleyes: Why do you keep saying the prices will drop?
It would be priced to what they are going for on the street its called TAX!!!
Next time you have a chance ask a cigarette smoker to look under his pack of cigarettes normally there are 2 stamps one state and one county that means the distributor have payed the TAX on that pack of cigarettes which intern means the buyer is going to be paying the tax on that pack of cigarettes that he /or she bought. Hard liqueur used to have a TAX stamp on the cap in AL but for what ever reason [If I had to guess it would be that bootlegged booze is not really a problem any more and they stopped the stamping process to save a buck] they stopped the stamping of bottle caps but the TAX$$ you pay $till remain the $ame.
The argument about pricing is crap it doesn't cost $5 bucks [in most parts of the conus] to make a pack of cigarettes in some places its almost $10 for a pack. Tax is a way for the government to control something that they don't really want the general population doing. That is why us gun owners pay a NFA TAX for some of our toys so we don't run a foul of the law and pay a bigger price.
From a purely economic standpoint, the example I used, while simplified, makes sense. Others, in the pro-legalization camp, have said that production costs would decrease because of economies of scale and gains in efficiency under large scale production. That usually translates into better prices for the consumer. I didn't take into account the effects of government taxation or intrusion, YET. Quit rolling your eyes and use them to read.:rolleyes:
You don't know what the going price would be. Neither would I. How you are so certain that the price of drugs after legalization would be the same as the price of drugs before legalization is beyond me. The truth is you have no clue. It might make sense to make it the same price as the going street price, but even that varies depending on availability (supply).
I understand the tobacco and alcohol tax. My parents owned a liquor store and I worked in it.
Once again, I am not against decriminalization. But, there is a whole lot of speculation going on here and people seem to think that the successes of decriminalization will equal success with legalization.
:confused::rolleyes: Why do you keep saying the prices will drop?
It would be priced to what they are going for on the street its called TAX!!!
Next time you have a chance ask a cigarette smoker to look under his pack of cigarettes normally there are 2 stamps one state and one county that means the distributor have payed the TAX on that pack of cigarettes which intern means the buyer is going to be paying the tax on that pack of cigarettes that he /or she bought. Hard liqueur used to have a TAX stamp on the cap in AL but for what ever reason [If I had to guess it would be that bootlegged booze is not really a problem any more and they stopped the stamping process to save a buck] they stopped the stamping of bottle caps but the TAX$$ you pay $till remain the $ame.
The argument about pricing is crap it doesn't cost $5 bucks [in most parts of the conus] to make a pack of cigarettes in some places its almost $10 for a pack. Tax is a way for the government to control something that they don't really want the general population doing. That is why us gun owners pay a NFA TAX for some of our toys so we don't run a foul of the law and pay a bigger price.
Thomas, the whole idea of legalization IS to drop prices to end the black market. The black market drug trade would necessarily continue if drug prices were kept artificially high as cartels would provide drugs at "reasonable" rates. This is already seen in states with the highest tobacco taxes as the mafia has stepped in to supply cheaper cigarettes. Thank you for you contribution, but you are shooting holes in your side's hypothesis.
Thomas, the whole idea of legalization IS to drop prices to end the black market. The black market drug trade would necessarily continue if drug prices were kept artificially high as cartels would provide drugs at "reasonable" rates. This is already seen in states with the highest tobacco taxes as the mafia has stepped in to supply cheaper cigarettes. Thank you for you contribution, but you are shooting holes in your side's hypothesis.
Said it better than I could have ...
Absolutely, if you tax something so aggressively that the legitimate industry cannot compete with the black market, you'll see consumers going the alternate route to get their "stuff"
Thomas M-4
06-11-11, 01:02
Thomas, the whole idea of legalization IS to drop prices to end the black market. The black market drug trade would necessarily continue if drug prices were kept artificially high as cartels would provide drugs at "reasonable" rates. This is already seen in states with the highest tobacco taxes as the mafia has stepped in to supply cheaper cigarettes. Thank you for you contribution, but you are shooting holes in your side's hypothesis.
Who says you! No were in this thread or any of the links in this thread do I remember the point to legalization was to drop the price. You says this ?? But you call chadbag idealistic and delusional.
If the maffia has stepped in to supply illegal cigarettes there profit margins are a lot less than what it would be if they were illegal. Also the places were bootlegged cigarettes are found are places were the taxes have been raised to such a point that in its self has created a market. But then the profit margins are still less than what it would be if they were totally illegal.
Thomas M-4
06-11-11, 01:04
Said it better than I could have ...
Absolutely, if you tax something so aggressively that the legitimate industry cannot compete with the black market, you'll see consumers going the alternate route to get their "stuff"
DUHH that is why you price it to what the black market is going for.
You narrow the risk to the reward to the point its not worth the risk.
Who says you! No were in this thread or any of the links in this thread do I remember the point to legalization was to drop the price. You says this ?? But you call chadbag idealistic and delusional...
Thomas, this thread is littered with claims from Chad that legalization will drop drug prices and end the black market. In fact, it is the basis for the theories behind the pro-legalization movement. Please see the following posts from Chad (edited for brevity sake):
#35) "Today there is money in the drug market due to the risk inherent in it. Take away the risk and you take away the big money, which means that most players will leave the market."
#82) "Or instead we can just legalize the drugs and get rid of the problem of the cartels etc. They will have to go on to some other vice to try and control as there won't be any money in drugs any more."
#99)"Price is dependent on cost and a big part of the cost of drugs is based on the risks associated with them. Remove the risks, you remove that element of the cost...It would put the cartels out of business IN THE DRUG BUSINESS. They might take up other lines of business. They are in the business due to the fact that the profit potential due to the high risk is very high. Drug legalization would remove that risk which would deflate the prices and profits.
#138) "If drugs were legal, prices would go down making it not worth it for the criminal element to embark on."
I strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your stance on this issue if you doubt the fundamental theory behind the legalization movement - welcome to our side ;)
DUHH that is why you price it to what the black market is going for.
You narrow the risk to the reward to the point its not worth the risk.
Very mature Thomas.
By the way, Chad basically said the same thing as lanesmith...
There would probably be some sort of regulation. How much would work and not work is something that would have to be figured out. Like taxing cigarettes. You did not get a lot of black market cigarettes until they started piling on taxes that made cigarettes significantly more expensive. Alcohol is another example. You don't have a huge black market on alcohol now because the government taxation and regulation is not overly burdensome.
I didn't say you were wrong in your comment that taxes would obviously be levied. However, your insistence that the prices of drugs after legalization would be the same as the current street price is a WAG. Part of the high street price of illegal drugs is the high risk. Do you know what the price would be without the risk?
Taxes are usually set amounts. Prices of anything fluctuates based upon demand and supply. It would also depend on the varying costs of production, prices of raw materials, availability of raw materials etc... which affects supply.
For example, cigarettes are taxed per pack. Alcohol is taxed per gallon. If production costs increase for a pack of cigarettes or a gallon of alcohol, the final price of the product would be different, but the tax per pack and tax per gallon would remain the same. Changing the amount of taxes usually requires new legislation.
The production costs may be high while companies are figuring out how to mass produce the drugs. That will change once efficiency gains are made.
IF I had to debate FOR the side of drug legalization, I would not try to fight the principles of supply vs demand. That is to say, I'd accept that the price of drugs would fall causing damage to the cartels, but that drug availability and use would likely increase according to supply vs demand principles. I'd then argue that the magnitude of this increase would be small and could be combated with the money saved from prosecution / incarceration. You see, the magnitude of this rise and the ease of controlling it is something that cannot possibly be known or proven, thus making for a much stronger argument. Also, the principle of elastic demand inherent to the drug trade is not well known to the layperson. I think that Chad and Thomas loose a number of people when they argue against the economic principles that have withstood the test of time.
However, the problem with this alternative argument is that it really runs against the grain of libertarian thought. Let's face it, combating drug use under a legalization scheme where use tends to increase involves coerced rehabilitation, government sponsored treatment, and strict regulations on drug sales. Not to mention the indirect effects of expanding entitlement programs since Charlie Sheen is the only employed crack head in America - oh shit, I forgot that he got fired.
I think that Chad realizes this alternative argument is essentially the position of liberals and progressives who want legalization to expand the nanny state. He is therefore forced to fight against solid economic principles to avoid compromising his core beliefs. Noble, but wrong nonetheless.
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/06/real-debate-about-drug-policy.html
Here is my observation of the drug legalization argument as it comes up time and again:
The con side of the argument seems to be made up of people with preconceived notions of drug use, people who have lost a family member to drugs, or LEOs who only see the absolute worst sort of people involved with drugs.
The pro side of the argument is made up of people who are ideological libertarians and/or people who have used drugs or know plenty of upstanding citizens who use drugs recreationally with no ill effects.
I will say what I know to be facts.
The worst sort of people have all sorts of problems. If they were not using hard drugs they would still be serious alcoholics, smoke 2 packs a day, and possibly huff glue. In other words, people with problems will still get high on something so they don't have to confront their core issues. They will still be ****-ups, criminals, bad actors, have lots of health issues and still be a general burden to society.
However, their are many more upstanding citizens in this country who actually are recreational drug users yet manage to have a career, a family, and hold down a job. For them, using drugs recreationally is no different than going to happy hour or drinking a 6 pack Saturday night. Many highly paid professionals use marijuana and cocaine recreationally and have done so for years while maintaining an otherwise normal life. Plenty of upper-middle class folks party with wine, cocktails, marijuana and cocaine. It is a fact. News flash - about 600 metric tons of cocaine come into this country every year. Who do you think is using the stuff?
montanadave
06-11-11, 08:35
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/06/real-debate-about-drug-policy.html
When the old war horses like George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker are advocating for decriminalizing drugs and major drug policy reform in the pages of The Wall Street Journal, the writings on the wall.
There will be significant political factions which will adamantly oppose liberalizing drug laws, but money talks and bullshit walks. In the end, the deficit hawks will bury the social conservatives.
upstanding citizens in this country who actually are recreational drug users yet manage to have a career, a family, and hold down a job.
Can you give an example of a "recreational" meth user with a job and family? Sure there are a lot of people who smoke pot and have a job and family but you can't use them to try to prove why meth should be legalized.
The debate is much harder if you believe all drugs should be legal vs decriminalize minor possession and legalize some drugs like pot.
ForTehNguyen
06-11-11, 11:04
drug prohibition without a constitutional amendment is rightfully a power reserved to the states. Even the alcohol prohibitionists knew back then to ban alcohol they had to pass a constitutional amendment
drug war does nothing but waste money, enriched criminals and cartels, lock up criminals that didnt do any harm to anyone, create all kinds of related crime: murders, robberies, gang wars, etc. Theres too many entrenched factions now that would oppose legalization: law enforcement, DEA, prison correction industries. We lock up more people as a % of our population than any country in the world, including ones run by dictators and despots. And its because we lock up potheads. Crime implies harm being done to another, how is someone using drugs in their own private property harmful to another. Where is the crime? Not to mention what authority does the govt have to tell us what we can put in our bodies?
Im sure the majority of us can agree on legalizing marijuana which is estimated to provide 60-70% of the cartels income. Eliminating this profit would severely hurt them, a 60-70% paycut. If we were to ever legalize marijuana, you could see the successes of legalization. Legalizing the others wont be any different.
Here is my observation of the drug legalization argument as it comes up time and again:
The con side of the argument seems to be made up of people with preconceived notions of drug use, people who have lost a family member to drugs, or LEOs who only see the absolute worst sort of people involved with drugs.
The pro side of the argument is made up of people who are ideological libertarians and/or people who have used drugs or know plenty of upstanding citizens who use drugs recreationally with no ill effects.
I will say what I know to be facts.
The worst sort of people have all sorts of problems. If they were not using hard drugs they would still be serious alcoholics, smoke 2 packs a day, and possibly huff glue. In other words, people with problems will still get high on something so they don't have to confront their core issues. They will still be ****-ups, criminals, bad actors, have lots of health issues and still be a general burden to society.
However, their are many more upstanding citizens in this country who actually are recreational drug users yet manage to have a career, a family, and hold down a job. For them, using drugs recreationally is no different than going to happy hour or drinking a 6 pack Saturday night. Many highly paid professionals use marijuana and cocaine recreationally and have done so for years while maintaining an otherwise normal life. Plenty of upper-middle class folks party with wine, cocktails, marijuana and cocaine. It is a fact. News flash - about 600 metric tons of cocaine come into this country every year. Who do you think is using the stuff?
First, I think that we need to distinguish between decriminalization of marijuana and legalization of all drugs. You will find more support for the former as I would be willing to give this a try. As for the legalization of all drugs, there is broad opposition to this idea across the country - no just LEO's and affected family members. In this thread the main opposition to hard drug legalization is being led by physicians who interact with all types of people affected by addition and not just those in the criminal justice system.
As for your facts about recreational drug use, you are may be correct about adults being able to recreationally use marijuana. I will say that I see very few people in my practice who use pot more that three times per week and effectively balance life's responsibilities. On the other hand, your statements about recreational cocaine use is not based in fact - especially when it is crack. While the notion of doing only a couple of lines is popularized in modern culture, this often leads to addition but not as fast as crack. Recreational crack use (less than 3 times per week) is a exceedingly rare and I have never seen someone able to meet the basic requirements of society while using this substance. Even independently wealthy celebrities see their lives unravel on crack. The same goes for most opiates (Oxy, heroin, methadone), modern methamphetamine, and long-term benzos (Xanax). Finally, it is pointless to try to legalize powder cocaine while keeping crack illegal since the latter is easily converted from the former.
I am definitely open to decriminalization of MJ for personal use.
I would probably even consider legalization of MJ and possibly harder drugs if our country was not such a nanny state. It's your right to put whatever you want into your body as long as it is my right not to be forced to take care of you. The latter not being the case has me completely unwilling to support the former (as in legalization of all drugs). For those of you that say "marijuana isn't that bad, all it does is make people lazy", it sure does, care to pay for their welfare checks?
By the way, I am not approaching this from a social conservative point of view. Drugs are bad, I get it. But, I don't have a desire to tell people what they can and cannot do, unless their failures **** with my success.
Proponents of legalization act like the cost to society due to the "War on Drugs" is immense and "costs a lot". Yet they forget to include that even legal substances have large costs to society. John_Wayne777 said it best in another drug legalization thread.
It should also be noted that legal alcohol, produced in the open and heavily taxed and regulated, is responsible for massive social costs. How many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? How much do we as a society pay in costs related to those who abuse alcohol? (A tiny minority of all alcohol users) Think about it: How much of your car insurance premium is the result of some drunk careening into people on the highway?
Often in these debates alcohol prohibition gets brought up as an example of a failed policy and legalization is discussed as if it made problems disappear. It doesn't. It replaces one set of problems with another set of problems.
The question becomes which set of problems is preferable.
So while libertarians argue for legalization on the basis of freedom/liberty (which I can agree with and respect), they should not make assumptions taken from pro-legalization talking points and say that it will lower the cost to society. While the legalization of drugs might reduce the cost to society in the form of reduced incarceration and ceasing the "war on drugs" (we don't know for sure what the cost savings will be), the costs of legalization of drugs will still have a huge societal burden.
When discussing issues like this, people should be honest about the pros and cons.
For example, first arguing that legalization will get rid of the illegal and substantial profits of the drug trade (in turn decreasing the cost of drugs), then arguing that this will indirectly help reduce usage is a misapplication of economics. Besides, how often has the legalization of anything really limited the access or decreased the supply?
Also, why do people insist on using the success of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal as a favorable argument for outright drug legalization in the United States of America? The Portugal case has relevance only when talking about decriminalization. It has convinced me that we should give decriminalization a try here in the U.S., but taking that success and trying to make a case for legalization is full of fail.
Lastly, let's not forget about the law of unintended consequences...
ForTehNguyen
06-11-11, 23:59
Also, why do people insist on using the success of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal as a favorable argument for outright drug legalization in the United States of America? The Portugal case has relevance only when talking about decriminalization. It has convinced me that we should give decriminalization a try here in the U.S., but taking that success and trying to make a case for legalization is full of fail.
Lastly, let's not forget about the law of unintended consequences...
decriminalization is the half way approach to legalization - addressing the demand side. Legalization addresses both supply and demand. All the pro drug war scaremongers always say if we tolerate drugs more there will be more drug use. What happened in Portugal and the Netherlands proves them wrong.
Cartels and inner city gangs will still thrive as long as there is prohibition just like the mafia in Prohibition days. If we are suppose to be against these drugs, then we should be against alcohol and tobacco also. But we arent, which is a gigantic double standard. War on Drugs is nothing but a economic war, and the way to win is to destroy the illegal profits, not by locking people up. Putting the laws of legislation morality and the laws of supply on demand on a head on collision course is where you the unintended consequences come from. Then we have the Constitutional and liberty argument. The Constitution cant be ignored here in favor of social engineering by legislating morality. If the states individually decide to ban them, fine, that is consistent with the Constitution by the 10th Amendment. However, we should not have the federal govt deciding for all 50 states because that is not under their enumerated powers to.
Can you give an example of a "recreational" meth user with a job and family?
Depends on how you define "meth." If you mean that god awful stuff they make in trailer parks using pseudoephedrine and a lithium reduction, then no.
However, pharmaceutical grade amphetamines are routinely used recreationally and as a performance enhancing drug.
Amphetamines were used by both sides during WWII. The Japanese used it for the military and it was used in factories to increase production. Hitler was prescribed amphetamines by his doctor.
Post-war, may US housewives used amphetamines to lose weight, fight postpartum depression, and to increase libido.
Truck drivers have had a long history of amphetamine use up until the DOT under the Regan Administration cracked down on the practice.
Today, Adderall is widely used by high school and college students to increase focus for studying and test taking.
Adderall is currently issued to US Air Force pilots to fly critical missions when they have not had sufficient crew rest. The SOCOM surgeon has a special Adderall protocol for certain SOF personnel.
On the other hand, your statements about recreational cocaine use is not based in fact - especially when it is crack. While the notion of doing only a couple of lines is popularized in modern culture, this often leads to addition but not as fast as crack.
Firstly, I wasn't talking about smoking crack. I was talking about the vastly more common snorting of powder cocaine. Again, the reason you see more crackheads in the ER is because they have a more profound problem then the more common place recreational cocaine user.
And by the way, what is the difference between a crackhead smoking illegal crack and a guy who legally huffs xylene?
Never the less, here is a short list of well known cocaine users:
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Jerry Brown
Marrion Barry
Jules Verne
Stephen King
Ulysses S. Grant
Sigmund Freud
Arthur Conan Doyle
Belmont31R
06-12-11, 00:21
Can you give an example of a "recreational" meth user with a job and family? Sure there are a lot of people who smoke pot and have a job and family but you can't use them to try to prove why meth should be legalized.
The debate is much harder if you believe all drugs should be legal vs decriminalize minor possession and legalize some drugs like pot.
My mom died from preciscription drugs. Thats the way docs are trained now. Filter the symptoms the patient says they have, run that through their brain, and come out with a prescription.
If I ever come down with cancer Ill be smoking pot all day long. Nothing better for it for people who are going through treatment.
And if you think "drugs" are bad why dont you check out what they give old people who are terminal. Many times they are flooded with drugs the last few days to weeks so they don't feel anything. Their last breaths on earth are being high as a kite.
Thomas M-4
06-12-11, 02:44
My mom died from preciscription drugs. Thats the way docs are trained now. Filter the symptoms the patient says they have, run that through their brain, and come out with a prescription.
If I ever come down with cancer Ill be smoking pot all day long. Nothing better for it for people who are going through treatment.
And if you think "drugs" are bad why dont you check out what they give old people who are terminal. Many times they are flooded with drugs the last few days to weeks so they don't feel anything. Their last breaths on earth are being high as a kite.
And if you think "drugs" are bad why dont you check out what they give old people who are terminal. Many times they are flooded with drugs the last few days to weeks so they don't feel anything. Their last breaths on earth are being high as a kite.
It is funny that you say that my grandmother suffered from advanced Parkinson's disease and went through at the time a experimental brain surgery she got a new general physician after the operation witch he immediately upped her medication. She lost 3 months of her life. and eventually had to be hospitalized for over dowsing from the upped prescriptions that her general physician prescribed her. She lived another 5++ yrs after the over dose from the new doctor.
decriminalization is the half way approach to legalization - addressing the demand side. Legalization addresses both supply and demand. All the pro drug war scaremongers always say if we tolerate drugs more there will be more drug use. What happened in Portugal and the Netherlands proves them wrong.
I understand. However, using Portugal as an example in support of all out drug legalization is incomplete at best and misleading at worst. Part of their decriminalization program appears to involve compulsory treatment (correct me if I'm wrong). The government and law enforcement are still going after traffickers, which isn't exactly all out tolerance. It merely treats addicts as patients, not criminals, but the substance is still viewed in a fairly negative light. As I've said before, I'm willing to give decriminalization a try here in the U.S.
Portugal and the United States are also very different in their demographics and culture. Lessons from Portuguese decriminalization, while relevant, cannot necessarily be applied with blind faith. The national attitude (this is vague, I know) of the U.S., which is still arguably the best country in the world (has been slipping as of late), is very different from the national attitude of a country with much lower status in the world. Portugal is also far more socialist than we are.
The U.S. also has a unique geographical challenge due to the open southern border which happens to be the main source of all the drugs. This, of course, has political reasons as well.
Cartels and inner city gangs will still thrive as long as there is prohibition just like the mafia in Prohibition days. If we are suppose to be against these drugs, then we should be against alcohol and tobacco also. But we arent, which is a gigantic double standard. War on Drugs is nothing but a economic war, and the way to win is to destroy the illegal profits, not by locking people up.
Criminals have existed long before the war on drugs. They simply choose to live outside of the law and get their income through dishonorable means. Even before the war on drugs, we've had murderers, bandits, violent gangs, bank robbers, burglars etc... you name it. Before drugs, gangs had protection rackets and other sources of illegal income.
How do you know the mafia isn't thriving? The organization has matured and taken it's illegal activities more underground through the veil of legal business instead of conducting them overtly, but I would argue that the crime families still exist and will continue to do so. They will still influence politicians through illegal bribes and campaign contributions. Criminals will not go away just because you took their favorite source of income away.
There is a black market that exists for pretty much anything that is illegal, and for anything that is legal, but is hard or expensive to get. You will still have people buying drugs, like alcohol, for minors. You already have "legal" drugs like oxycontin, being purchased legally (and probably being paid for by an insurance plan, which means the cost is being defrayed by the group as a whole), then being resold at a profit. This is an example of drug related crime, even when the drug is legal.
Putting the laws of legislation morality and the laws of supply on demand on a head on collision course is where you the unintended consequences come from. Then we have the Constitutional and liberty argument. The Constitution cant be ignored here in favor of social engineering by legislating morality. If the states individually decide to ban them, fine, that is consistent with the Constitution by the 10th Amendment. However, we should not have the federal govt deciding for all 50 states because that is not under their enumerated powers to.
Ahh yes, the Constitution...well until my right to pursuit of happiness isn't being trampled by our government (through wealth redistribution), I won't be in favor of someone else's right to put something in their body that will inevitably make them a worthless piece of shit in society, causing me and other producers to foot the bill.
I guess I have a stop trampling my rights and I'll stop trampling yours mentality...
Firstly, I wasn't talking about smoking crack. I was talking about the vastly more common snorting of powder cocaine. Again, the reason you see more crackheads in the ER is because they have a more profound problem then the more common place recreational cocaine user.
And by the way, what is the difference between a crackhead smoking illegal crack and a guy who legally huffs xylene?
Never the less, here is a short list of well known cocaine users:
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Jerry Brown
Marrion Barry
Jules Verne
Stephen King
Ulysses S. Grant
Sigmund Freud
Arthur Conan Doyle
Although it is legal to purchase solvents for industrial and home use, huffing / snorting is illegal in most localities. There is also a big difference in how cocaine acts on your brain which lead to much stronger physical dependance.
My mom died from preciscription drugs. Thats the way docs are trained now. Filter the symptoms the patient says they have, run that through their brain, and come out with a prescription.
If I ever come down with cancer Ill be smoking pot all day long. Nothing better for it for people who are going through treatment.
And if you think "drugs" are bad why dont you check out what they give old people who are terminal. Many times they are flooded with drugs the last few days to weeks so they don't feel anything. Their last breaths on earth are being high as a kite.
I'm sorry about your mother's death, but your statements about how physicians are trained and the use of analgesics for the terminally ill are gross over-simplifications.
Depends on how you define "meth."
Methamphetamine, it's the only amphetamine called "meth".
montanadave
06-12-11, 18:07
I'm sorry about your mother's death, but your statements about how physicians are trained and the use of analgesics for the terminally ill are gross over-simplifications.
As someone who has worked in both oncology and hospice/palliative care, I also felt a correction was in order when I read those comments.
Thanks for taking the time to address the issue.
Never the less, here is a short list of well known cocaine users:
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Jerry Brown
Marrion Barry
Jules Verne
Stephen King
Ulysses S. Grant
Sigmund Freud
Arthur Conan Doyle
LOL that is quite the list... About half are idiots.
Not sure what this list was meant to show.
LOL that is quite the list... About half are idiots.
Not sure what this list was meant to show.
I believe he was trying to make the point that many of those people are very successful despite having used cocaine, either recreationally or as addicts, in their past.
While that certainly may be the case, many more are on a downward spiral once they get hooked on cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, etc.. and don't have enough resources to dig themselves out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.