RE: Legalizing Drugs.

RE: Legalizing Drugs. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/31/2009 9:55:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian my ultimate question is if this is really a good idea. I remain highly unconvinced, in the least. I'm a bit puzzled as to where you are coming from here, Marc. On the one hand, you are deploring the growth and power of government, and questioning where the taxes would really be spent, on the other, you seem to be advocating for massive government intrusion into the personal lives and habits of the citizenry. I happen to think the harm of drugs upon our society would be greatly reduced by taking a radically new approach to the problem. You want to talk about costs in property damage and mortality rates, while deploring big gov't? Perhaps have a peek at the number here, http://www.actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml . Consider the cost to families and lives of over 1.5 millions arrests per year, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm . Disease? Here is an article from two decades ago about the link between drug policy and the spread of AIDS. Harm reduction. Yeah. It's a good idea.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/1/2009 4:57:34 AM)
~FR~ Does anyone know a website that has the stats on the percentage of inmates that are there on a drug conviction? I know there is an entire industry created around all of this, from the prisons, to law enforcement and the companies that manufacture the equipment. Many of the food services for detention centers and prisons are contracted out, not to mention the cotton and wood industries would be hit hard if hemp were legalized and massively grown. So where else are their massive cash investments in keeping drugs illegal?

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/1/2009 10:02:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian my ultimate question is if this is really a good idea. I remain highly unconvinced, in the least. I'm a bit puzzled as to where you are coming from here, Marc. That's fair. I'm puzzled about what seems your unwavering bias in legalizing all drugs for recreational use. About your links: The first you provide appears a little slanted in its politics and conspiracy theories. There are several sites I can list expressing the same political rhetoric, but in reverse position. For this reason it's better to stick mostly to factual government statistics and peer-reviewed journals. Your second link illustrates clearly that criminalizing possession is indeed a problem, and I agree. The dated article you provide in your third link, while itself referring to drug control as well intentioned, is discussing at least two main issues in tandem: the spread of a virus through contaminated needle sharing, and the residual consequences of a less than perfect crack-down on drugs by a government system. There are also lifestyle and socioeconomic factors contributing to the article's findings as well; it's quite a mixed bag of issues, but it does lead to an inevitable question: is there room for improvement in the way we look at and handle the drug problem? Most certainly. But if you believe legalizing all narcotics under the sun for recreational use is the panacea for our troubles, I'd say your guilty of wishful thinking. I'm all for legalizing possession of certain quantities and examining the reasons why our culture demands so much escapism in freebase or the bottle, but turning the production and pushing of cocaine (among other drugs) into a state-sanctioned industry? I know I'm not feeling it.

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/1/2009 2:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Oh I'm quite certain it would have to be regulated—and heavily—but that's not really the crux of the previous point. Despite regulation of any sort, it stands to reason that legalizing the commercial sale and open distribution of narcotics for recreation would increase mortality rates and damage to property statistics, not lower them. I don't think that a rise in mortality rates is necessarily a given on this. For two main reasons. Firstly, I think there's a strong argument that decriminalising or legalising drugs will mean that addicts are more likely to admit themselves for treatment, since they won't fear being arrested. Secondly, one of the major causes of drug fatalities, particuarly from heroin, is the wide variance in the quality and purity of the substance. Somewhat ironically, heroin deaths always rise when a batch hits the streets which is purer than normal. quote: There are admittedly a great many number of socioeconomic factors behind criminal statistics, but to suggest narcotics have no additive effect on negative human behavior—or vulnerability to negative human behavior—is optimistic. I've seen my share of stupid violence based simply on alcohol use alone in my fair city. I don't see any substantive evidence to suggest legalizing all drugs under the sun will improve the problem, raise our living standards or make us more competitive in the world. That I'd broadly agree with. However, I think the real question is whether resources are best spent on stopping drug use, including victimless drug use, or whether the money currently being spent would be better targetted towards combatting violent crimes. quote: Legalizing drugs would be an enormously risky social experiment, particularly where it relates to our youth, who will inevitably receive mixed messages about the safeness of drug use. Quite honestly, I think the widespread acceptance of alcohol and tobacco already gives out mixed messages. And the current illegal status of drugs can give them an outlaw cachet to those members of the youth who consider themselves alienated from mainstream society. quote: After looking at the data, my ultimate question is if this is really a good idea. I remain highly unconvinced, in the least. The problem is that we're not in an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" situation. I think that, by any objective measurement, current drugs policy has conclusively failed. Obviously, you may still be right that total legalisation isn't the way forward either. But that still leaves us in a situation with an utterly bankrupt policy, and we need a way out of that. Out of interest, what would be your views on my proposal that we legalise the 'softer' drugs and allow doctors to prescribe addicts the 'harder' ones? (So treating hard drug addiction as a medical problem, as opposed to a legal one). Obviously I'm biased, but that would strike me as having at least some of the benefits of legalisation, while avoiding some of the pitfalls you're worried about.

TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/1/2009 7:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian That's fair. I'm puzzled about what seems your unwavering bias in legalizing all drugs for recreational use. About your links: The first you provide appears a little slanted in its politics and conspiracy theories. There are several sites I can list expressing the same political rhetoric, but in reverse position. For this reason it's better to stick mostly to factual government statistics and peer-reviewed journals. Your second link illustrates clearly that criminalizing possession is indeed a problem, and I agree. The dated article you provide in your third link, while itself referring to drug control as well intentioned, is discussing at least two main issues in tandem: the spread of a virus through contaminated needle sharing, and the residual consequences of a less than perfect crack-down on drugs by a government system. There are also lifestyle and socioeconomic factors contributing to the article's findings as well; it's quite a mixed bag of issues, but it does lead to an inevitable question: is there room for improvement in the way we look at and handle the drug problem? Most certainly. But if you believe legalizing all narcotics under the sun for recreational use is the panacea for our troubles, I'd say your guilty of wishful thinking. I'm all for legalizing possession of certain quantities and examining the reasons why our culture demands so much escapism in freebase or the bottle, but turning the production and pushing of cocaine (among other drugs) into a state-sanctioned industry? I know I'm not feeling it. Slanted links, Marc? You were the one citing NIDA. It's not like they have an agenda to push, or anything...[8\|] I grabbed that one because they put the number right there at the top, in big, bold colors. The "dated" article was to point out that the connection between drug policy, and the spread of AIDS has been well known since the days when AIDS was an automatic death sentence. As for my belief that we should legalize the lot, that isn't so much based on the recreational opportunities, as a pragmatic approach to smashing the criminal cartels. We can come back later, and tighten up. There is also the harm reduction factor of eliminating the toxic impurities the addicts are ingesting. I'm not about to go Googling up recipes for what gets sold as speed today, compared to the regular methamphetamine that gets prescribed to ___'s under the brand name Ritalin. That would get me onto one of Big G's watchlists, because civil liberties are incompatible with the War on Drugs, and I'm probably on enough of those lists already. Feel free, though. You'll find things, like tractor starting fluid, that probably aren't in the pills we issue to fighter pilots. I share your concerns about idiots hitting the roads, with a head full of cocaine and a sense of personal perfect power. Won't be pretty. Those gangs aren't just going to vanish when we cut off their main source of income. They'll carry their violence into other endeavors, and that won't be pretty either. On the other side, we'll be better off. More importantly, we will have a lot more resources available to address the real crime, instead of the ones we pursue as a jobs program. It isn't our culture that seeks this, Marc. It is in the nature of our species. It would be a bit long for a link anyway, but I would refer you to another dated item, Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception. I've been told that the native word for just about any distilled spirit translates crudely as "water of life." Would our youth culture have some special vulnerability? Maybe, but whenever somebody starts in with the "kids today" crapola, I think of this old quote: The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. Now maybe it was Socrates that said that, or maybe it was just attributed to him by Plato, but it clearly point out that our times are nothing new or special. 'Fraid the lasagna just smells to good to fully address this at the moment. To be continued...

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/1/2009 8:45:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kidwithknife The problem is that we're not in an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" situation. I think that, by any objective measurement, current drugs policy has conclusively failed. Obviously, you may still be right that total legalisation isn't the way forward either. But that still leaves us in a situation with an utterly bankrupt policy, and we need a way out of that. Out of interest, what would be your views on my proposal that we legalise the 'softer' drugs and allow doctors to prescribe addicts the 'harder' ones? (So treating hard drug addiction as a medical problem, as opposed to a legal one). Obviously I'm biased, but that would strike me as having at least some of the benefits of legalisation, while avoiding some of the pitfalls you're worried about. The current deployment of law enforcement is changing in these times, considering the legal resources once intended for domestic crime are now being redirected to handle anti-terrorism. From what I understand right now, the FBI is having difficulty directing resources due to this fact. I can only speculate as to what this will mean for the subject of this thread. As for your proposal, generally, yes, I believe hard drug addiction should be treated medically, not with prison time. Clearly, there are different types of addicts, just as there are different types of drugs, but total abstinence for a once heavy user is a rather lofty goal, regardless. While having a population as free from addiction as possible in the first place is always my first choice, a functional, process-driven approach to rehabilitation for addicts, as you astutely point out, is ideal. Out of curiosity, what drugs do you consider "soft" and "hard"? While the DSM or PDR may not conflict with the answers, personal preference and experience may.

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 8:55:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Out of curiosity, what drugs do you consider "soft" and "hard"? While the DSM or PDR may not conflict with the answers, personal preference and experience may. I broadly go with the "matrix of harm" approach which looks at social costs as well as the effects on the user- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323105029.htm I'd consider heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, barbituates and PCP hard. Ecstasy, cannabis and LSD soft. A couple are on the cusp. I'd put amphetamine sulphate in the soft category because its not physically addictive and I think the harm it causes society is relatively small. That's very much on the line though because it's so mentally addictive. I also think there's a very good case to be made for alcohol to be considered a hard drug. However, due to cultural factors I think containment is all we can hope for there- its use is too ingrained in our society for it to be realistic to look at criminalising it.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 2:07:04 PM)
You do realize that Ecstacy is a form of methamphetamine?

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 4:34:30 PM)
M quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You do realize that Ecstacy is a form of methamphetamine? My understanding is that Ecstasy and Crystal Meth are both amphetamines, but the chemical makeup is different, as are the effects. Is that wrong?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 6:47:47 PM)
They are different in the end, but both derive from the same base mix. I will not go into detail, as it would likely be against TOS and don't want anyone to try it at home. Ecstacy can have some of the same addictive effects as meth, but usually not to as severe a degree. What makes ecstacy bad is the substitute stuff that people make it with, because the more refined items are restricted or on a watch list. Some of this have residuals of heavy metals in them, which in high dosage or prolonged usage, can cause damage to many internal organs. If you (general) put it in your body, you should know exactl what it is in it, and effects both short and long term it can have upon you. I personally do not classify drugs as hard or soft. There are physically addictive drugs, psychologically addicitive drugs, and both. The degrees of these addictive qualities vary, and can vary on individual. There will always be a segment of society that likes intoxicants and those that do not. quote: ORIGINAL: kidwithknife M quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You do realize that Ecstacy is a form of methamphetamine? My understanding is that Ecstasy and Crystal Meth are both amphetamines, but the chemical makeup is different, as are the effects. Is that wrong?

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 7:25:55 PM)
I would like to see legalization of small amounts of pot, coke, and some types of LSD for personal use. One poster mentioned that pot was his "gateway" drug. Fair enough. But then beer and wine would also have to be gateway drugs. No one wakes up 1 day and drinks a fifth of Jack unless they started small. We've all seen the studies that say there will always be a percentage of a population that will abuse whatever is available. Didn't Kitty Dukakis enter rehab for drinking rubbing alcohol? How messed-up is that?! For me, the bottom line is that what we are doing now is not working. Violence increases as the street price goes up, so in a way, busting a drug ring can be counter-productive. And ultimately, doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is 1 definition of insanity. So why not give some sort of legalization a chance? If you take the production and distribution out of the hands of drug cartels and local dealers and turn it over to various regulated corporate entities then the profit motive and violence drop to almost nothing. One thing the US pharmcuetical industry CAN do is produce a safe, quality product at very low cost (don't get me started on the drug industry...). Consider Tylenol, Advil, and Bayer Aspirin. Cheap, safe, and effective. And while there are no gangs trying to push it on school children on the street corner there are still "aspirin junkies" out there. So leagalize it, control it, tax it, fund education and treatment, and move on to why people need/want to get high in the 1st place. Just my 2-cents worth. ~Dave

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 7:59:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf They are different in the end, but both derive from the same base mix. I will not go into detail, as it would likely be against TOS and don't want anyone to try it at home. Ecstacy can have some of the same addictive effects as meth, but usually not to as severe a degree. What makes ecstacy bad is the substitute stuff that people make it with, because the more refined items are restricted or on a watch list. Some of this have residuals of heavy metals in them, which in high dosage or prolonged usage, can cause damage to many internal organs. If you (general) put it in your body, you should know exactl what it is in it, and effects both short and long term it can have upon you. I personally do not classify drugs as hard or soft. There are physically addictive drugs, psychologically addicitive drugs, and both. The degrees of these addictive qualities vary, and can vary on individual. There will always be a segment of society that likes intoxicants and those that do not. Thanks for that info. And I understand the issue with the ToC. Similarily, I fully accept there are certain subjective reasons that might lead me to my views on specific drugs. But again I think it would be sailing too close to breaking the ToC to go into detail.

TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/2/2009 11:15:18 PM)
Okey-dokey. I meant to get back to this thread a bit sooner, but a good meal, good sex, and a need to do things like sleep and work have been known to interfere... I think trying to divide drugs down arbitrary lines of hard and soft is something of a useless distraction. We quibble forever about where to classify a very powerful drug like LSD, and cancer patients keep right on suffering without the heroin that ought to be prescribed. Manner of use is far more important. Would marijuana be a "soft" drug if we are talking about the guy who smokes ten joints a day? Is crack (or clean, freebase cocaine) a "hard" drug for a couple who get a room at the beach for a weekend long smoke-and-fuck fest, twice a year? I would want to see a system with levels of access, based on potency, rather than the type of effect the user experiences. Get beyond looking at this from the level of street drugs. What do drugs do to the user? You go up, down, or sideways. Where we should be drawing lines, is at 'how far,' and 'how fast.' Drivers 'stay-alert' tablets are not crystal meth. Over the counter, Tylenol 3 is not heroin. Magic mushrooms and peyote are not LSD. Will some poor dumbasses try to prove otherwise? Probably. They are the exact same of variety of people who wind up clogging our prisons and institutions today. I realize we have been sticking mainly to the public health aspects along this thread, but we really ought to to toss in the economic impact. This would be an entire new legitimate, and tax-paying, industry. No more 3-bike convoy at 130 mph, runs through the desert on crotch rockets to move 11 pounds of crank, so the tweaker can spend three days smoking his cut with whatever hooker wanders by. We are talking about companies buying the trucks to build a distribution fleet, renting and building industrial and office space, ordering all the custom display cases for the stores, hiring accountants, and marketers and the herds of office flunkies that will deal with the federal regulatory paperwork. We are talking about serious small business opportunities. We are talking about private sector jobs. We are talking about a whole new sector brought into the economy.

rulemylife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/3/2009 10:07:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kidwithknife quote: ORIGINAL: Thunderbird56 Who owns your body? Do you own it? Or does the government own it? Ok, maybe if you are a slave you voluntarily ceded ownership to a Master ... but the question, the argument, the point isn't about what drugs are "good or bad" or "how good or bad" ... it's about freedom! Period. While I'm broadly sympathetic to that argument, drugs aren't produced out of thin air. And the conditions of that production are real and have an effect on people other then those who use them. Take cocaine. Doing cocaine is saying you don't mind if Latin American peasants live in fear and die in pain as long as you get to feel like a gameshow host at the weekend. They live in fear because it is illegal and run by gangs. Legalizing it would remove the criminals and allow it to be a regulated, taxed business just as alcohol became.

rulemylife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/3/2009 10:51:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Sin taxes to support health care, in essence? Sounds like more government intervention to me, especially if one uses tobacco and alcohol as a guide; the government is all over that. Which government intervention do you prefer, regulating and taxing or arresting and incarcerating? Not to mention the money we spend on drug eradication efforts in countries like Colombia and Mexico. quote: Further, will the taxes the government levies against these products inevitably create its own black market and smuggling problem? Legitimate traders in this would-be utopia will be undercut by illegal traders. Therefore, will the criminal activity around drugs stop or simply change? Do we now have a huge black market in alcohol and cigarettes because of the taxes, or do most people prefer the corner store?

TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/3/2009 6:26:45 PM)
Holy crap, RML! Are we actually on the same side of an issue?

Kirata -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (4/3/2009 6:31:00 PM)
~Fast Reply~ TIME has just published an article in its Nation section urging the legalization of marijuana. Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense K.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875