Just say No! ...To the War on Drugs (1 Viewer)

[njherdfan]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Ilov80s]

Is anyone here promoting mass commercialization of all drugs? Is anyone thinking that it would be a good route?

But you are promoting the mass legalization of all drugs?

I am?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

A few things:

1. War on Drugs is not the same as drugs being legal or illegal. Drugs could be legalized or decriminalized or kept illegal. It is how what we do with users and sellers that we catch.

2. I have a grad school class on program evaluation. Evaluate the "war on drugs" as any other program gets evaluated:

- Has it met it's goal? It has not stopped drugs from being widely available in the country to adults, kids, etc.

- Is it cost effective? At $50 billion a year, I think we all agree that is a very significant amount of money that the United States can not afford to waste.

- Are there unintended consequences? Many and some might argue the unintended consequences are as bad as the original problem.

How can this program not be re-evaluated?

Agree. Isn't there some middle ground here where we reevaluate and reform the program without just opening the floodgates and completely legalizing everything?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Is anyone here promoting mass commercialization of all drugs? Is anyone thinking that it would be a good route?

But you are promoting the mass legalization of all drugs?

I am?

It was a question. What are you promoting? Trying to understand your position, not trying to put words in your mouth.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems counterintuitive to me. Either drug abuse is a disease and sufferers should be given medical care to deal with it, or we should punish drug abuse by enhancing existing punishment when it's involved.

 

[Gawain]

I see your point, but when we're talking about crack, meth, heroine, etc., we're talking about drugs that are so addictive and so mind-altering and destructive, I don't see how it can be a good thing to endorse them as a society, not to mention letting advertisers make them out to be sexy and appealing.

Nicotine is more addictive than the drugs you list. DXM is more mind altering than the drugs you list. Alcohol is more destructive than the drugs you list.

You've bought into the WoD propaganda that some drugs are inherently good and some are inherently bad. We don't endorse methadone as a society, but we recognize that providing it is better than the alternative.

You're wrong to look at whole-scale legalization as a panacea for all that ails us, but should instead realize that decriminalizing is the best of all options available.

Links?Even so, nicotine may be more addictive, but less mind altering. Alcohol, more destructive, but less addictive. I think it's the combination of addiction, effects, and destruction that cause us to rationally categorize alcohol and cigarettes into a softer category than heroine and crack.

You'd be wrong. It's going to be very difficult to pull from an unbiased source, but the decision to criminalize has a lot more to do with race and ethnicity than with federal hearings on the addictive properties of a substance. (First pot laws went on the books because of Mexicans and blacks, opium restriction was to curry Chinese favor, crack was more heavily penalized than cocaine because of the association with the inner-city)

There's very little rational reasoning behind our drug classifications.

 

[njherdfan]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems counterintuitive to me. Either drug abuse is a disease and sufferers should be given medical care to deal with it, or we should punish drug abuse by enhancing existing punishment when it's involved.

But no one is talking about punishment for drug use. We're talking about punishment for crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. For instance, if you're caught driving under the influence of heroin, your punishment is enhanced. The whole point of decriminalization is to stop punishing those (overwhelmingly poor and black) who are caught with small amounts of drugs and then sent to prison. No one advocates letting someone get high on their drug of choice and then drive around with impunity.

 

[Gawain]

Jeff Miron can say it a heck of a lot better than I can:

We’ve come a long way since Reefer Madness. Over the past two decades, 16 states have de-criminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and 22 have legalized it for medical purposes. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington went further, legalizing marijuana under state law for recreational purposes. Public attitudes toward marijuana have also changed; in a November 2013 Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans supported marijuana legalization.

Yet amidst these cultural and political shifts, American attitudes and U.S. policy toward other drugs have remained static. No state has decriminalized, medicalized, or legalized cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. And a recent poll suggests only about 10 percent of Americans favor legalization of cocaine or heroin. Many who advocate marijuana legalization draw a sharp distinction between marijuana and “hard drugs.”

That’s understandable: Different drugs do carry different risks, and the potential for serious harm from marijuana is less than for cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Marijuana, for example, appears incapable of causing a lethal overdose, but cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine can kill if taken in excess or under the wrong circumstances.

But if the goal is to minimize harm — to people here and abroad— the right policy is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.

In fact, many legal goods cause serious harm, including death. In recent years, about 40 people per year have died from skiing or snowboarding accidents; almost 800 from bicycle accidents; several thousand from drowning in swimming pools; more than 20,000 per year from pharmaceuticals; more than 30,000 annually from auto accidents; and at least 38,000 from excessive alcohol use.

Few people want to ban these goods, mainly because while harmful when misused, they provide substantial benefit to most people in most circumstances.

The same condition holds for hard drugs. Media accounts focus on users who experience bad outcomes, since these are dramatic or newsworthy. Yet millions risk arrest, elevated prices, impurities, and the vagaries of black markets to purchase these goods, suggesting people do derive benefits from use.

That means even if prohibition could eliminate drug use, at no cost, it would probably do more harm than good. Numerous moderate and responsible drug users would be worse off, while only a few abusive users would be better off.

And prohibition does, in fact, have huge costs, regardless of how harmful drugs might be.

First, a few Economics 101 basics: Prohibiting a good does not eliminate the market for that good. Prohibition may shrink the market, by raising costs and therefore price, but even under strongly enforced prohibitions, a substantial black market emerges in which production and use continue. And black markets generate numerous unwanted side effects.

Black markets increase violence because buyers and sellers can’t resolve disputes with courts, lawyers, or arbitration, so they turn to guns instead. Black markets generate corruption, too, since participants have a greater incentive to bribe police, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards. They also inhibit quality control, which causes more accidental poisonings and overdoses.

The bottom line: Even if hard drugs carry greater health risks than marijuana, rationally, we can’t ban them without comparing the harm from prohibition against the harms from drugs themselves. What’s more, prohibition creates health risks that wouldn’t exist in a legal market. Because prohibition raises heroin prices, users have a greater incentive to inject because this offers a bigger bang for the buck. Plus, prohibition generates restrictions on the sale of clean needles (because this might “send the wrong message”). Many users therefore share contaminated needles, which transmit HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood-borne diseases. In 2010, 8 percent of new HIV cases in the United States were attributed to IV drug use.

Prohibition enforcement also encourages infringements on civil liberties, such as no-knock warrants (which have killed dozens of innocent bystanders) and racial profiling (which generates much higher arrest rates for blacks than whites despite similar drug use rates). It also costs a lot to enforce prohibition, and it means we can’t collect taxes on drugs; my estimates suggest U.S. governments could improve their budgets by at least $85 billion annually by legalizing — and taxing — all drugs. U.S. insistence that source countries outlaw drugs means increased violence and corruption there as well (think Columbia, Mexico, or Afghanistan).

It’s also critical to analyze whether prohibition actually reduces drug use; if the effects are small, then prohibition is virtually all cost and no benefit.

On that question, available evidence is far from ideal, but none of it suggests that prohibition has a substantial impact on drug use. States and countries that decriminalize or medicalize see little or no increase in drug use. And differences in enforcement across time or place bear little correlation with uses. This evidence does not bear directly on what would occur under full legalization, since that might allow advertising and more efficient, large-scale production. But data on cirrhosis from repeal of U.S. Alcohol Prohibition suggest only a modest increase in alcohol consumption.

To the extent prohibition does reduce drug use, the effect is likely smaller for hard drugs than for marijuana. That’s because the demands for cocaine and heroin appear less responsive to price. From this perspective, the case is even stronger for legalizing cocaine or heroin than marijuana; for hard drugs, prohibition mainly raises the price, which increases the resources devoted to the black market while having minimal impact on use.

But perhaps the best reason to legalize hard drugs is that people who wish to consume them have the same liberty to determine their own well-being as those who consume alcohol, or marijuana, or anything else. In a free society, the presumption must always be that individuals, not government, get to decide what is in their own best interest.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-moral-case-legalizing-cocaine-heroin

 

[CowboysFromHell]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems counterintuitive to me. Either drug abuse is a disease and sufferers should be given medical care to deal with it, or we should punish drug abuse by enhancing existing punishment when it's involved.

But no one is talking about punishment for drug use. We're talking about punishment for crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. For instance, if you're caught driving under the influence of heroin, your punishment is enhanced. The whole point of decriminalization is to stop punishing those (overwhelmingly poor and black) who are caught with small amounts of drugs and then sent to prison. No one advocates letting someone get high on their drug of choice and then drive around with impunity.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. The idea is responsible drug use.

 

[Gawain]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems counterintuitive to me. Either drug abuse is a disease and sufferers should be given medical care to deal with it, or we should punish drug abuse by enhancing existing punishment when it's involved.

But no one is talking about punishment for drug use. We're talking about punishment for crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. For instance, if you're caught driving under the influence of heroin, your punishment is enhanced. The whole point of decriminalization is to stop punishing those (overwhelmingly poor and black) who are caught with small amounts of drugs and then sent to prison. No one advocates letting someone get high on their drug of choice and then drive around with impunity.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. The idea is responsible drug use.

No, the idea is that legalization/decriminalization would be better than the current system.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Jeff Miron can say it a heck of a lot better than I can:

We’ve come a long way since Reefer Madness. Over the past two decades, 16 states have de-criminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and 22 have legalized it for medical purposes. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington went further, legalizing marijuana under state law for recreational purposes. Public attitudes toward marijuana have also changed; in a November 2013 Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans supported marijuana legalization.

Yet amidst these cultural and political shifts, American attitudes and U.S. policy toward other drugs have remained static. No state has decriminalized, medicalized, or legalized cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. And a recent poll suggests only about 10 percent of Americans favor legalization of cocaine or heroin. Many who advocate marijuana legalization draw a sharp distinction between marijuana and “hard drugs.”

That’s understandable: Different drugs do carry different risks, and the potential for serious harm from marijuana is less than for cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Marijuana, for example, appears incapable of causing a lethal overdose, but cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine can kill if taken in excess or under the wrong circumstances.

But if the goal is to minimize harm — to people here and abroad— the right policy is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.

In fact, many legal goods cause serious harm, including death. In recent years, about 40 people per year have died from skiing or snowboarding accidents; almost 800 from bicycle accidents; several thousand from drowning in swimming pools; more than 20,000 per year from pharmaceuticals; more than 30,000 annually from auto accidents; and at least 38,000 from excessive alcohol use.

Few people want to ban these goods, mainly because while harmful when misused, they provide substantial benefit to most people in most circumstances.

The same condition holds for hard drugs. Media accounts focus on users who experience bad outcomes, since these are dramatic or newsworthy. Yet millions risk arrest, elevated prices, impurities, and the vagaries of black markets to purchase these goods, suggesting people do derive benefits from use.

That means even if prohibition could eliminate drug use, at no cost, it would probably do more harm than good. Numerous moderate and responsible drug users would be worse off, while only a few abusive users would be better off.

And prohibition does, in fact, have huge costs, regardless of how harmful drugs might be.

First, a few Economics 101 basics: Prohibiting a good does not eliminate the market for that good. Prohibition may shrink the market, by raising costs and therefore price, but even under strongly enforced prohibitions, a substantial black market emerges in which production and use continue. And black markets generate numerous unwanted side effects.

Black markets increase violence because buyers and sellers can’t resolve disputes with courts, lawyers, or arbitration, so they turn to guns instead. Black markets generate corruption, too, since participants have a greater incentive to bribe police, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards. They also inhibit quality control, which causes more accidental poisonings and overdoses.

The bottom line: Even if hard drugs carry greater health risks than marijuana, rationally, we can’t ban them without comparing the harm from prohibition against the harms from drugs themselves. What’s more, prohibition creates health risks that wouldn’t exist in a legal market. Because prohibition raises heroin prices, users have a greater incentive to inject because this offers a bigger bang for the buck. Plus, prohibition generates restrictions on the sale of clean needles (because this might “send the wrong message”). Many users therefore share contaminated needles, which transmit HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood-borne diseases. In 2010, 8 percent of new HIV cases in the United States were attributed to IV drug use.

Prohibition enforcement also encourages infringements on civil liberties, such as no-knock warrants (which have killed dozens of innocent bystanders) and racial profiling (which generates much higher arrest rates for blacks than whites despite similar drug use rates). It also costs a lot to enforce prohibition, and it means we can’t collect taxes on drugs; my estimates suggest U.S. governments could improve their budgets by at least $85 billion annually by legalizing — and taxing — all drugs. U.S. insistence that source countries outlaw drugs means increased violence and corruption there as well (think Columbia, Mexico, or Afghanistan).

It’s also critical to analyze whether prohibition actually reduces drug use; if the effects are small, then prohibition is virtually all cost and no benefit.

On that question, available evidence is far from ideal, but none of it suggests that prohibition has a substantial impact on drug use. States and countries that decriminalize or medicalize see little or no increase in drug use. And differences in enforcement across time or place bear little correlation with uses. This evidence does not bear directly on what would occur under full legalization, since that might allow advertising and more efficient, large-scale production. But data on cirrhosis from repeal of U.S. Alcohol Prohibition suggest only a modest increase in alcohol consumption.

To the extent prohibition does reduce drug use, the effect is likely smaller for hard drugs than for marijuana. That’s because the demands for cocaine and heroin appear less responsive to price. From this perspective, the case is even stronger for legalizing cocaine or heroin than marijuana; for hard drugs, prohibition mainly raises the price, which increases the resources devoted to the black market while having minimal impact on use.

But perhaps the best reason to legalize hard drugs is that people who wish to consume them have the same liberty to determine their own well-being as those who consume alcohol, or marijuana, or anything else. In a free society, the presumption must always be that individuals, not government, get to decide what is in their own best interest.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-moral-case-legalizing-cocaine-heroin

Using this rationale, do you agree that you could argue to legalize ANYTHING?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When you say anything, give some examples.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

When you say anything, give some examples.

I'd like to buy some anthrax, for home use only. You can punish me severely if I harm anyone with it.

 

[njherdfan]

Jeff Miron can say it a heck of a lot better than I can:

We’ve come a long way since Reefer Madness. Over the past two decades, 16 states have de-criminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and 22 have legalized it for medical purposes. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington went further, legalizing marijuana under state law for recreational purposes. Public attitudes toward marijuana have also changed; in a November 2013 Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans supported marijuana legalization.

Yet amidst these cultural and political shifts, American attitudes and U.S. policy toward other drugs have remained static. No state has decriminalized, medicalized, or legalized cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. And a recent poll suggests only about 10 percent of Americans favor legalization of cocaine or heroin. Many who advocate marijuana legalization draw a sharp distinction between marijuana and “hard drugs.”

That’s understandable: Different drugs do carry different risks, and the potential for serious harm from marijuana is less than for cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Marijuana, for example, appears incapable of causing a lethal overdose, but cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine can kill if taken in excess or under the wrong circumstances.

But if the goal is to minimize harm — to people here and abroad— the right policy is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.

In fact, many legal goods cause serious harm, including death. In recent years, about 40 people per year have died from skiing or snowboarding accidents; almost 800 from bicycle accidents; several thousand from drowning in swimming pools; more than 20,000 per year from pharmaceuticals; more than 30,000 annually from auto accidents; and at least 38,000 from excessive alcohol use.

Few people want to ban these goods, mainly because while harmful when misused, they provide substantial benefit to most people in most circumstances.

The same condition holds for hard drugs. Media accounts focus on users who experience bad outcomes, since these are dramatic or newsworthy. Yet millions risk arrest, elevated prices, impurities, and the vagaries of black markets to purchase these goods, suggesting people do derive benefits from use.

That means even if prohibition could eliminate drug use, at no cost, it would probably do more harm than good. Numerous moderate and responsible drug users would be worse off, while only a few abusive users would be better off.

And prohibition does, in fact, have huge costs, regardless of how harmful drugs might be.

First, a few Economics 101 basics: Prohibiting a good does not eliminate the market for that good. Prohibition may shrink the market, by raising costs and therefore price, but even under strongly enforced prohibitions, a substantial black market emerges in which production and use continue. And black markets generate numerous unwanted side effects.

Black markets increase violence because buyers and sellers can’t resolve disputes with courts, lawyers, or arbitration, so they turn to guns instead. Black markets generate corruption, too, since participants have a greater incentive to bribe police, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards. They also inhibit quality control, which causes more accidental poisonings and overdoses.

The bottom line: Even if hard drugs carry greater health risks than marijuana, rationally, we can’t ban them without comparing the harm from prohibition against the harms from drugs themselves. What’s more, prohibition creates health risks that wouldn’t exist in a legal market. Because prohibition raises heroin prices, users have a greater incentive to inject because this offers a bigger bang for the buck. Plus, prohibition generates restrictions on the sale of clean needles (because this might “send the wrong message”). Many users therefore share contaminated needles, which transmit HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood-borne diseases. In 2010, 8 percent of new HIV cases in the United States were attributed to IV drug use.

Prohibition enforcement also encourages infringements on civil liberties, such as no-knock warrants (which have killed dozens of innocent bystanders) and racial profiling (which generates much higher arrest rates for blacks than whites despite similar drug use rates). It also costs a lot to enforce prohibition, and it means we can’t collect taxes on drugs; my estimates suggest U.S. governments could improve their budgets by at least $85 billion annually by legalizing — and taxing — all drugs. U.S. insistence that source countries outlaw drugs means increased violence and corruption there as well (think Columbia, Mexico, or Afghanistan).

It’s also critical to analyze whether prohibition actually reduces drug use; if the effects are small, then prohibition is virtually all cost and no benefit.

On that question, available evidence is far from ideal, but none of it suggests that prohibition has a substantial impact on drug use. States and countries that decriminalize or medicalize see little or no increase in drug use. And differences in enforcement across time or place bear little correlation with uses. This evidence does not bear directly on what would occur under full legalization, since that might allow advertising and more efficient, large-scale production. But data on cirrhosis from repeal of U.S. Alcohol Prohibition suggest only a modest increase in alcohol consumption.

To the extent prohibition does reduce drug use, the effect is likely smaller for hard drugs than for marijuana. That’s because the demands for cocaine and heroin appear less responsive to price. From this perspective, the case is even stronger for legalizing cocaine or heroin than marijuana; for hard drugs, prohibition mainly raises the price, which increases the resources devoted to the black market while having minimal impact on use.

But perhaps the best reason to legalize hard drugs is that people who wish to consume them have the same liberty to determine their own well-being as those who consume alcohol, or marijuana, or anything else. In a free society, the presumption must always be that individuals, not government, get to decide what is in their own best interest.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-moral-case-legalizing-cocaine-heroin

Using this rationale, do you agree that you could argue to legalize ANYTHING?

Under what rationale? A detailed cost-benefit analysis? I'd say sure; if you can show that the harm to society for activity X is very low, and the benefit would be high, then I'd be happy to have that conversation about it. Because when we're dealing with the "war on drugs" what we're really dealing with are laws that serve to disproportionately punish a distinct class of people, without any corresponding benefit to society.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

if you can show that the harm to society for activity X is very low

I guess this is the part I'm not buying. Can you really be sure legalizing hard drugs will cause minimal harm to society?

 

[njherdfan]

if you can show that the harm to society for activity X is very low

I guess this is the part I'm not buying. Can you really be sure legalizing hard drugs will cause minimal harm to society?

That's a fair question. Just to be clear though, I'm talking about decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs. Not a blanket legalization and allowing planes full of cocaine to land at Newark Airport tomorrow. To your question, I'd say that I can't be positive but I can say that (1) other countries have decriminalized (not legalized) drug possession, and have had positive results, and (2) I think our current policy IS causing extensive harm to our society, and something needs to change.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

if you can show that the harm to society for activity X is very low

I guess this is the part I'm not buying. Can you really be sure legalizing hard drugs will cause minimal harm to society?

What harm has been caused where it has already been decriminalized?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

if you can show that the harm to society for activity X is very low

I guess this is the part I'm not buying. Can you really be sure legalizing hard drugs will cause minimal harm to society?

That's a fair question. Just to be clear though, I'm talking about decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs. Not a blanket legalization and allowing planes full of cocaine to land at Newark Airport tomorrow. To your question, I'd say that I can't be positive but I can say that (1) other countries have decriminalized (not legalized) drug possession, and have had positive results, and (2) I think our current policy IS causing extensive harm to our society, and something needs to change.

I kept meaning to check if any other countries had tried this. Yes there are several examples: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization

 

[Ilov80s]

Is anyone here promoting mass commercialization of all drugs? Is anyone thinking that it would be a good route?

But you are promoting the mass legalization of all drugs?

I am?

It was a question. What are you promoting? Trying to understand your position, not trying to put words in your mouth.

I'm not promoting anything other than a full and honest re-evaluation of how we deal with drugs in this country because the current approach is a massive failure at every objective measure.

 

[Gr00vus]

The money and power generated via conducting the war on drugs are major problems in trying to end it. I have a hunch those two problems outweigh U.S. public opinion in regard to whether a war on drugs is desirable or not.

 

[Ilov80s]

The money and power generated via conducting the war on drugs are major problems in trying to end it. I have a hunch those two problems outweigh U.S. public opinion in regard to whether a war on drugs is desirable or not.

How much does the American opinion matter on much of anything right now?

 

[Gr00vus]

The money and power generated via conducting the war on drugs are major problems in trying to end it. I have a hunch those two problems outweigh U.S. public opinion in regard to whether a war on drugs is desirable or not.

How much does the American opinion matter on much of anything right now?

Exactly. Ending the war on drugs would be pretty high in my "Things I would do if I were President" fantasy draft rankings. Top 10 for sure.

 

[Christo]

Legalize is the wrong term. Decriminalize.

 

[Sinn Fein]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems counterintuitive to me. Either drug abuse is a disease and sufferers should be given medical care to deal with it, or we should punish drug abuse by enhancing existing punishment when it's involved.

But no one is talking about punishment for drug use. We're talking about punishment for crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. For instance, if you're caught driving under the influence of heroin, your punishment is enhanced. The whole point of decriminalization is to stop punishing those (overwhelmingly poor and black) who are caught with small amounts of drugs and then sent to prison. No one advocates letting someone get high on their drug of choice and then drive around with impunity.

This.

Using drugs is a choice. It does not have to harm anyone else. In fact, I would say most recreational drug use causes to harm to anyone other than the user. So the government should not be criminalizing its use - but if you commit a crime, like driving under the influence - then you punish that act - in a manner that deters people from acting.

 

[Sinn Fein]

When you say anything, give some examples.

I'd like to buy some anthrax, for home use only. You can punish me severely if I harm anyone with it.

Lets say I agree to let you buy/have anthrax - is there a legitimate use for it?

How is that any different than letting you buy a gun? Or drums of diesel fuel and fertilizer, and whatever other components you need to make a bomb, or letting you buy dynamite, which you can presumably get a permit to purchase.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I would legalize all drugs for adults over the age of 21. I could get any drug I wanted at 14. I can get any drug I want now. Access will not change. If you want it, you will find it.

Please note that while I have seen heroin/meth being done around me and been offered on a few occasions, I have never tried heroin or meth. That was my choice and continues to be to this day. Funny story, there are worse LEGAL drugs than heroin/meth that can be received via hack doctor prescriptions. And no one questions those drugs.

 

[Sinn Fein]

In general laws should be designed to protect us, and our property, from others. (Since we have to pay for some of that protection, we do need laws to collect funds to pay for such protection)

Possession and use of drugs, in and of themselves cause no harm to others. We, as a government, "know" however that possession and use will lead to bad things - but rather than address the bad things, we make a blanket assumptions and make overly broad prohibitions.

 

[Ilov80s]

Legalize is the wrong term. Decriminalize.

I'm not a legal expert like you, but isn't there a huge difference?

 

[Christo]

Legalize is the wrong term. Decriminalize.

I'm not a legal expert like you, but isn't there a huge difference?

Yes, and the OP was specifically talking about legalizing. Not just taking away criminal penalties but implementing a system of regulation.

 

[mquinnjr]

All drugs should be legal.

Any real crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should receive an enhanced punishment.

And yet some here are saying they'd treat the drug users as patients, not criminals. Interesting.

What's interesting? People shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, but in recognition of the drugs' effects, other crimes committed while on them should be punished accordingly. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems counterintuitive to me. Either drug abuse is a disease and sufferers should be given medical care to deal with it, or we should punish drug abuse by enhancing existing punishment when it's involved.

But no one is talking about punishment for drug use. We're talking about punishment for crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. For instance, if you're caught driving under the influence of heroin, your punishment is enhanced. The whole point of decriminalization is to stop punishing those (overwhelmingly poor and black) who are caught with small amounts of drugs and then sent to prison. No one advocates letting someone get high on their drug of choice and then drive around with impunity.

This.

Using drugs is a choice. It does not have to harm anyone else. In fact, I would say most recreational drug use causes to harm to anyone other than the user. So the government should not be criminalizing its use - but if you commit a crime, like driving under the influence - then you punish that act - in a manner that deters people from acting.

What about the angle of a user of a substance like heroin or meth being viewed by the law as a market maker for the vertical supply chain of those who commit violence/murder at will (street dealer to source supplier) to protect their current access or gain further access to you as a user, who is making their market for them?

Great documentary on this by Louis Theroux on the drug trade in Philadelphia, where the dealers and cops interviewed all point to a majority of violence in the city related to territory battles over drugs to gain access to the users, and other drug related crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tei_Jv80ibQ

This is what it looks like with access "if you know where to go" wide open. Extrapolate that out to legalization/regulation, and you cut out the black market for the most part and the related violence, which is a good thing. But look at the people that they interview who are users, their lives are pretty much ruined save a full recovery, which is a long shot.

Honestly, I'm not sure what's worse: Status quo and the related violence, or a regulated market where anyone can become a junkie after a few trips to a hard drug dispensary. I don't have a good answer there, but the war on drugs isn't doing anything to slow the current black market if that's the government's aim.

 

[chauncey]

If I could get high quality reasonably priced cocaine legally I'd probably go through an 8 ball every weekend. For the sake of my long term health I am glad that isn't an option.

 

[cstu]

Honestly, I'm not sure what's worse: Status quo and the related violence, or a regulated market where anyone can become a junkie after a few trips to a hard drug dispensary. I don't have a good answer there, but the war on drugs isn't doing anything to slow the current black market if that's the government's aim.

Here's why I prefer the latter:

- rehab costs will be paid for by the users from sales taxes, not the general public

- gangs will be dealt a major blow (no pun intended) as a their main source of income is taken away

- more people might try them, but Colorado shows that legalization doesn't necessarily lead to greater use

- at least people would be using high quality drugs not the contaminated products they get on the streets

And my personal belief:

- it is supposed to be a free country so if someone wants to destroy their life by becoming a junkie then they should be allowed to - just as with alcohol.

 

[mquinnjr]

Honestly, I'm not sure what's worse: Status quo and the related violence, or a regulated market where anyone can become a junkie after a few trips to a hard drug dispensary. I don't have a good answer there, but the war on drugs isn't doing anything to slow the current black market if that's the government's aim.

Here's why I prefer the latter:

- rehab costs will be paid for by the users from sales taxes, not the general public

- gangs will be dealt a major blow (no pun intended) as a their main source of income is taken away

- more people might try them, but Colorado shows that legalization doesn't necessarily lead to greater use

- at least people would be using high quality drugs not the contaminated products they get on the streets

And my personal belief:

- it is supposed to be a free country so if someone wants to destroy their life by becoming a junkie then they should be allowed to - just as with alcohol.

Yeah, just hard to wrap my head around the legalization of hard drugs as a potential new normal, but I'm with you on the above. If it were to eradicate the related gang violence, I'd be with it. Just hard to fathom, I guess.

 

[whiskey7]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers, I don't think you've really gotten anywhere. Could argue that situation would spark even more violence and desperation as the street guys may be competing for an even smaller share of the pie. And if you make drugs cheap enough to run out the black market guys, well, then you're offering hardcore drugs cheaper than they have been previously and making attaining them as easy as going to the store for a sixer of Bud Light. I don't think there is any way to say for sure how many more people would try the hard stuff (that otherwise wouldn't) if it's that much cheaper and easier to get. Those people already struggling with addiction could likely afford even more of what they're hooked on. Couple people have said treat the addicts as patients not criminals. So you put em in a treatment center instead of jail? How long before the treatment center is overcrowded and conditions are resembling that of the jails? People say there are a disproportionate number of blacks in jail because of drugs and that's one justification for legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. Well, what happens when there is a disproportionate number of blacks in treatment? Would we have just changed their address and little more? Or do we think an out patient program is going to work for people who were not afraid of jail time? And what becomes of the people currently making their living off the illegal drug business? Some violent people will be very angry and desperate after their livelihood is taken away. Something tells me they won't just shrug it off and start updating their resume.

BTW, that video about Philly is an excellent watch, IMO. Thanks to mquinn for linking it.

 

[cstu]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers

Cocaine is cut as high as 90% - why would someone not prefer to buy cocaine that hasn't been cut by god knows what? Even if it costs more, store bought cocaine will provide more value to consumers than street cocaine.

 

[cstu]

And what becomes of the people currently making their living off the illegal drug business? Some violent people will be very angry and desperate after their livelihood is taken away. Something tells me they won't just shrug it off and start updating their resume.

Valid point.

 

[whiskey7]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers

Cocaine is cut as high as 90% - why would someone not prefer to buy cocaine that hasn't been cut by god knows what? Even if it costs more, store bought cocaine will provide more value to consumers than street cocaine.

why does someone drive an old beater when a Mercedes is so much better? In most cases, I think people do the drugs they can afford. And if the street guys are putting stuff out there that is cheaper than the "official" state stuff, some people will still go the street route as long as they can get high off of it.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Spin-off from the threads on recent police shootings. Should the War on Drugs be ended and all drugs be made legal in the United States? My coming-in position is: No, don't be ridiculous. Convince me otherwise.

To get us started, a quote from the other thread:

For me, the fact that we are far and away the leader in incarcerations per capita. The main reason for that is the criminalization of what is a victimless crime. We then compound that by locking these people up with violent offenders which will often force them to become more violent or latch on to a gang for survival purposes. I think you can see where this is going.

I see your point, but when we're talking about crack, meth, heroine, etc., we're talking about drugs that are so addictive and so mind-altering and destructive, I don't see how it can be a good thing to endorse them as a society, not to mention letting advertisers make them out to be sexy and appealing.Is there some middle ground, where they are technically legal, but stringently regulated? But, if the laws are too strict, won't there still be a black market to circumvent, and then we're right back where we started.

Addiction is a disease. How does incarcerating people help cure them? Look up Portugal's approach to their drug problem and get back to us. Point two is that our current approach is economically unsustainable. Point three is that the current approach is extremely racially biased.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers

Cocaine is cut as high as 90% - why would someone not prefer to buy cocaine that hasn't been cut by god knows what? Even if it costs more, store bought cocaine will provide more value to consumers than street cocaine.

why does someone drive an old beater when a Mercedes is so much better? In most cases, I think people do the drugs they can afford. And if the street guys are putting stuff out there that is cheaper than the "official" state stuff, some people will still go the street route as long as they can get high off of it.

Don't know if your analogy works, you can't drive half a Benz to work.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Helpful links

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

http://www.seattle.gov/housing/homeless/1811.htm

"Providing housing and support services for homeless alcoholics costs taxpayers less than leaving them on the street, where taxpayer money goes towards police and emergency health care. Stable housing also results in reduced drinking among homeless alcoholics, according to a Seattle-based study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

 

[Gawain]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers

Cocaine is cut as high as 90% - why would someone not prefer to buy cocaine that hasn't been cut by god knows what? Even if it costs more, store bought cocaine will provide more value to consumers than street cocaine.

why does someone drive an old beater when a Mercedes is so much better? In most cases, I think people do the drugs they can afford. And if the street guys are putting stuff out there that is cheaper than the "official" state stuff, some people will still go the street route as long as they can get high off of it.

Don't know if your analogy works, you can't drive half a Benz to work.

Why don't we all just drink Bud Light and MD 20/20 while we smoke our loosies from Virginia? Most people are discriminating consumers.

The NIDA estimates 2 million coke addicts out of a population of 25 million that's tried blow at least once. That's a whole lot of users that don't have a problem and are unlikely to opt for the illegal route.

You seem to think that anyone that does a drug harder than pot is an addict and beholden to the substance until they die or rehab. That's not the case. If I could pay $100 for a G that I knew wasn't cut with baby laxative the two times a year I see my FF buddies, I'd gladly do it.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers

Cocaine is cut as high as 90% - why would someone not prefer to buy cocaine that hasn't been cut by god knows what? Even if it costs more, store bought cocaine will provide more value to consumers than street cocaine.

why does someone drive an old beater when a Mercedes is so much better? In most cases, I think people do the drugs they can afford. And if the street guys are putting stuff out there that is cheaper than the "official" state stuff, some people will still go the street route as long as they can get high off of it.

Don't know if your analogy works, you can't drive half a Benz to work.

You seem to think that anyone that does a drug harder than pot is an addict and beholden to the substance until they die or rehab. That's not the case. If I could pay $100 for a G that I knew wasn't cut with baby laxative the two times a year I see my FF buddies, I'd gladly do it.

Link?

 

[Jack White]

Spin-off from the threads on recent police shootings. Should the War on Drugs be ended and all drugs be made legal in the United States? My coming-in position is: No, don't be ridiculous. Convince me otherwise.

To get us started, a quote from the other thread:

For me, the fact that we are far and away the leader in incarcerations per capita. The main reason for that is the criminalization of what is a victimless crime. We then compound that by locking these people up with violent offenders which will often force them to become more violent or latch on to a gang for survival purposes. I think you can see where this is going.

I see your point, but when we're talking about crack, meth, heroine, etc., we're talking about drugs that are so addictive and so mind-altering and destructive, I don't see how it can be a good thing to endorse them as a society, not to mention letting advertisers make them out to be sexy and appealing.

Is there some middle ground, where they are technically legal, but stringently regulated? But, if the laws are too strict, won't there still be a black market to circumvent, and then we're right back where we started.

One of the problems with your premise is that "society" is a fiction.

There is only the individual. And each individual should have the freedom to own his own body and ingest whatever he wants.

The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Spin-off from the threads on recent police shootings. Should the War on Drugs be ended and all drugs be made legal in the United States? My coming-in position is: No, don't be ridiculous. Convince me otherwise.

To get us started, a quote from the other thread:

For me, the fact that we are far and away the leader in incarcerations per capita. The main reason for that is the criminalization of what is a victimless crime. We then compound that by locking these people up with violent offenders which will often force them to become more violent or latch on to a gang for survival purposes. I think you can see where this is going.

I see your point, but when we're talking about crack, meth, heroine, etc., we're talking about drugs that are so addictive and so mind-altering and destructive, I don't see how it can be a good thing to endorse them as a society, not to mention letting advertisers make them out to be sexy and appealing.

Is there some middle ground, where they are technically legal, but stringently regulated? But, if the laws are too strict, won't there still be a black market to circumvent, and then we're right back where we started.

One of the problems with your premise is that "society" is a fiction.

There is only the individual. And each individual should have the freedom to own his own body and ingest whatever he wants.

The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom.

Sayyyyyyyyyy. Aren't you really like "Jack White #1Fan?"

 

[chauncey]

I alluded to this earlier and I will bring it up again. In order to put the current dealers/lords out of business and kill the black market, don't you have to offer either a better product or a cheaper price? If you make drugs legal and available in stores but you tax them such that the price is beatable by the street dealers

Cocaine is cut as high as 90% - why would someone not prefer to buy cocaine that hasn't been cut by god knows what? Even if it costs more, store bought cocaine will provide more value to consumers than street cocaine.

why does someone drive an old beater when a Mercedes is so much better? In most cases, I think people do the drugs they can afford. And if the street guys are putting stuff out there that is cheaper than the "official" state stuff, some people will still go the street route as long as they can get high off of it.

Don't know if your analogy works, you can't drive half a Benz to work.

Why don't we all just drink Bud Light and MD 20/20 while we smoke our loosies from Virginia? Most people are discriminating consumers.

The NIDA estimates 2 million coke addicts out of a population of 25 million that's tried blow at least once. That's a whole lot of users that don't have a problem and are unlikely to opt for the illegal route.

You seem to think that anyone that does a drug harder than pot is an addict and beholden to the substance until they die or rehab. That's not the case. If I could pay $100 for a G that I knew wasn't cut with baby laxative the two times a year I see my FF buddies, I'd gladly do it.

Are we in the same league?

 

[Ilov80s]

Legalize is the wrong term. Decriminalize.

I'm not a legal expert like you, but isn't there a huge difference?

Yes, and the OP was specifically talking about legalizing. Not just taking away criminal penalties but implementing a system of regulation.

Ok, but to be fair, I am the one that started the entire spinoff discussion from the Garner thread and my angle wasn't necessarily legalization as much as the current approach is a failure with horrible side effects.

 

[Ilov80s]

And what becomes of the people currently making their living off the illegal drug business? Some violent people will be very angry and desperate after their livelihood is taken away. Something tells me they won't just shrug it off and start updating their resume.

Valid point.

True and it's an issue we might have to deal with, but aren't we dealing with those people anyway? What it will likely impact is the next generations of violent drug dealers.

 

[Jack White]

I like what Penn Gillette says about this stuff: "Proselytizing is good, but don't bother trying to convince anyone of anything."

So, the War of Drugs is Bull####. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only:

Penn And Teller Bull####: The War on Drugs

 

[cstu]

why does someone drive an old beater when a Mercedes is so much better? In most cases, I think people do the drugs they can afford. And if the street guys are putting stuff out there that is cheaper than the "official" state stuff, some people will still go the street route as long as they can get high off of it.

A .5 gram of pure cocaine would get someone just as high as 1 gram that was cut 50%.

It also wouldn't be profitable to smuggle it into the U.S. if it was legal here. A kilo that has a wholesale value in the U.S. of $30k is profitable to manufacturers at $2k. Few people are going to risk going to jail to smuggle in a legal product.

 

[cstu]

And what becomes of the people currently making their living off the illegal drug business? Some violent people will be very angry and desperate after their livelihood is taken away. Something tells me they won't just shrug it off and start updating their resume.

Valid point.

True and it's an issue we might have to deal with, but aren't we dealing with those people anyway? What it will likely impact is the next generations of violent drug dealers.

Yes, and I guess that some money currently being spent to fight the War on Drugs could be used to help people find jobs.