Drugs! Wow - what a great debate.

[KSFreeman]

Pffft, big deal, Rich, I can demonstrate that 100% of individuals who have contracted cancer have slept at some point in their lives.

"Everyone knows sleep gives you cancer." Neil, The Young Ones.

[Crosshair]

What about the fact that having a C&R makes your wallet lighter. We need to ban C&R cause it is addicting.

[Epyon]

Just because there are people can't handle smoking weed or doing any other substace (ie: immature high school idiots that think of nothing but drugs.) doesn't mean that adults aren't capable of it, and that others should have to pay the price over a small group's stupidity. Kids shouldn't even get their hands on those illegal substances in the first palce, however me being a graduate of the class of 2002, I can easily say that everyone knew who/where to go to get illegal substances, and the sad part about it, is that even the "legal" drugs were as accessible. Abuse and addiction exist in every substance, are you going to ban prescription medication just because pill poppers everywhere abuse the drug? Let's face it the war on drugs is a losing battle, prohibition is an excellent example. Let's also not forget that marijuana has been in human history longer, if not just as long as alcohol and it's only been within the last century or so that it's been villainized as an evil drug. Now what of people that take substances for religious or creative purposes? I also think the other reason people want to make an exception to marijuana is because more people are becoming re-educated about the plant, and the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of medical patients who need it and will use it regardless of laws. They are using civil disobedience in order to try to get the laws to change. Also as for drugs destroying society, I think there are bigger issues destroying our country, and the war on drugs is a slice of the pie in the sense that it's a waste of everyone's tax dollars. I'm more concerned about the Patriot Act and other obscene bills which violate the Constitution, I'm concerned about partyline politics banning gay marrige just to "protect the sanctity of marrige" in a country with such a high divorce rate and where a good number of people are only Christian by name, not by actions. As I've said before, when we let government rule over our personal responsibilities we are taking the easy way out and allow them more control over us.


Epyon

[Dust_Devil]

By this same analytic cause/effect logic: I can demonstrate that 92% of people who have smoked pot actually got started only after being exposed to milk in their younger years. That's pretty damning evidence against the dairy industry, don't you agree?

And maybe you can demostrate that those who didn't eat their broccoli now have meth labs in their homes?
Get me some of that milk you had in mind that causes people to start smoking pot. I could use a good dairy high.

I don't think your logic was the same logic I had trying to get my point across that drug use leads to using other drugs.

[Rich Lucibella]

DD-
But it was the exact same "logic" as you offered in your rant.
"If A is followed by B, then A must be the cause and B the effect. No further need of explanation."

Works for you, I know.
Rich

[ATW525]

I can only speak of my personal experience and the people I know, but I've never met anybody who got into the "hard" drugs because they wanted stronger bones. Everybody I've met who got into heroin, meth, crack, etc (about a dozen people that I know well enough to know how they got started) has been in it for the high. They all started with marijuana and alcohol, as they're the most readily available and socially acceptable recreational drugs. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any junkies who are in it because they believe heroin is a good source of calcium, though.

Will legalizing marijuana produce a a whole bunch of new hardcore drug users? I'd say it's probably unlikely. It's already readily available and the people likely to abuse drugs and become hardcore addicts are most likely already smoking it, unless they've moved on to something else.

My personal position is that I'm 100% against the legalization of the "hard" drugs, but I can care less about marijuana either way. I don't believe that potheads are a threat to society, however I am firmly convinced that crackheads, junkies and tweakers are.

[Rich Lucibella]

I think what many of us fail to grasp is this:
When some of us say we are in favor of decriminalization of most victimless drug crimes, we are not necessarily saying we condone drug use; we're not saying we think local street pushers should be allowed to pedal poison to our children or neighbors.

All we're saying is that we no longer wish to pay $40K per year to imprison someone for hurting themselves; nor are we willing to pay the costs of carrying that person's family on Welfare during the time of incarceration. We've done it for 4 Decades now and the percentage of US Citizens being jailed on our dime simply continues to mount. And we're tired of paying the costs to our civil liberties of the increasingly frenzied State Response to the Failed War on Some Drugs. The "preventive" benefit of the WoSD simply has never materialized; in Police Work, that would be called a "clue".

Think about it: Some guy wants to snort cocaine in a bathroom. You pay with your liberty to allow the State to get into that bathroom so that you can then pay his keep for 5 years; and his family's keep for the same duration. Now multiply that times a couple million families.

If someone wishes to kill themselves thru drugs, absent directly harming another, I simply don't see why I should be expected to pay to have them baby sitted for life.

As always, YMMV
Rich

[Harley Quinn]

They are just looking out for you so you can be around a long time and pay taxes and help keep the country afloat.

Rich's last post was very well thought out and explained the problem good IMO. Wish it were that simple.

HQ

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, no doubt if more drugs were legal, more Americans would being doing them to get high, just like alcohol. And as we all know, a stoned America is stronger, smarter, and more effective America.

It all sounds very liberal like our liberal capitalist partner in Europe, the Netherlands. We all know the country as a world power, like France, but with less resolve. It is a big deal with the French surrender, but few folks take notice when the Netherlands do.

You have to admit, countries like the Netherlands have policies on recreational drugs, prostitution, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia are among the most liberal in the world. Of course, as a liberal pro drug country, they aren't very pro gun. Go figure.

From http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...guns/laws.html

Gun owners must be licensed. Applicants must be over 18 years old and a gun club member for at least a year. Applications are approved by police, and licenses must be renewed annually.

Firearms must be registered.

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned.

[Rich Lucibella]

Well, no doubt if more drugs were legal, more Americans would being doing them to get high, just like alcohol.

Source, please?

The fact is that alcohol consumption was decreasing from 1910 thru 1920, when the Volstead Act was introduced. As the result of the distribution chaos caused by Volstead, consumption spiked down further...for about a year. After that, consumption of alcohol continued to rise throughout prohibition.
Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.

So, would it be fair to say that Prohibition increases the use of illegal drug substances? Of course not. But it would be just as absurd to claim, absent any source whatsoever that prohibition causes a decrease in use of such substances. Anecdotally, one need only look at the statistics from the WoSD to draw conclusion here.

But three things are for certain:
- Prohibition does not stem the ready supply of inferior and often poisonous substitutes for previously available drugs.
- Prohibition costs society BILLIONS per year in incarceration, police investigation and welfare payments.
- Prohibition costs ALL Americans a very real price in terms of their rights to privacy, free movement and safety when confronted by the Police.

The arguments in favor of continuing the current failed WoSD inevitably fall back on unsubstantiated BogeyMan rhetoric.
Rich

[Rich Lucibella]

From that scandalously left wing organization, The CATO Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

More on health:

An examination of death rates does reveal a dramatic drop in deaths due to alcoholism and cirrhosis, but the drop occurred during World War I, before enforcement of Prohibition.[28] The death rate from alcoholism bottomed out just before the enforcement of Prohibition and then returned to pre-World War I levels.[29] That was probably the result of increased consumption during Prohibition and the consumption of more potent and poisonous alcoholic beverages. The death rate from alcoholism and cirrhosis also declined rather dramatically in Denmark, Ireland, and Great Britain during World War I, but rates in those countries continued to fall during the 1920s (in the absence of prohibition) when rates in the United States were either rising or stable.[30]

[28] The death rate due to alcoholism and cirrhosis began to decrease after 1916, before the wartime restrictions began. The tax rate on a gallon of distilled spirits increased from $1.10 to $3.20 in October 1917 and to $6.40 in February 1919. The War Prohibition Act did not become effective until July 1, 1919. Taking into account massive immigration and the impact of World War I, the alcohol-related death rate may have begun to decline much earlier. It should also be noted that death due to alcoholism and cirrhosis is thought to be the result of a long, cumulative process; therefore, the decrease in death rates must, in part, be at tributed to factors at work before the wartime restrictions on alcohol and Prohibition.

[29] Warburton, p. 90.

[30] Ibid., pp. 78-90. States were either rising or stable.[30]

More on Crime:

Early temperance reformers claimed that alcohol was responsible for everything from disease to broken homes. High on their list of evils were the crime and poverty associated with intemperance.
[Sound familiar?]
[snip]

The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on po- lice (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent.[42] More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods.

Instead of emptying the prisons as its supporters had hoped it would, Prohibition quickly filled the prisons to capacity.

[42] Charles Hanson Towne, The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1923), pp. 156-61. The 30 cities examined had a total population of more than 10 million. A closer examination of the cities studied indicates that the greatest increases in crime occurred in those that were previously wet; the only cities to experience a decline in arrests were already dry when Prohibition was enacted.

More on corruption:

It was hoped that Prohibition would eliminate corrupting influences in society; instead, Prohibition itself be- came a major source of corruption. Everyone from major politicians to the cop on the beat took bribes from bootleggers, moonshiners, crime bosses, and owners of speakeasies. The Bureau of Prohibition was particularly susceptible and had to be reorganized to reduce corruption. According to Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Lincoln C. Andrews, "conspiracies are nation wide in extent, in great numbers, organized, well-financed, and cleverly conducted."[52] De- spite additional resources and reorganization, corruption continued within the bureau. Commissioner of Prohibition Henry Anderson concluded that "the fruitless efforts at enforcement are creating public disregard not only for this law but for all laws. Public corruption through the purchase of official protection for this illegal traffic is widespread and notorious. The courts are cluttered with prohibition cases to an extent which seriously affects the entire administration of justice."[53]

Prohibition not only created the Bureau of Prohibition, it gave rise to a dramatic increase in the size and power of other government agencies as well. Between 1920 and 1930 employment at the Customs Service increased 45 percent, and the service's annual budget increased 123 percent. Personnel of the Coast Guard increased 188 percent during the 1920s, and its budget increased more than 500 percent between 1915 and 1932. Those increases were primarily due to the Coast Guard's and the Customs Service's role in enforcing Prohibition.[54]

[52] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Prohibition Enforcement (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1927), p. 2.

[53] National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 90.

[54] Ibid., p. 215. The additional resources greatly expanded the enforcement of Prohibition. The annual number of liquor seizures by Customs doubled between 1927 and 1931.

[Eghad]

I would imagine that just because a drug like marijuana is decriminalized folks are not going to run out in droves to start smoking it. Some folks probably buying it off the streets would proably grow it at home for personal consumption. Plus by decriminalizing it you take the profits out of it for the drug cartels and criminal elements and gangs. Which means law enforcement officers would be freed up to do other things. Imagine if the drugs that gangs used to make $$$ were decriminalized and the profit goes way down and puts the dealers out of business. If there is no money in selling drugs because they are legal what do they do?

[jimacp]

Well, no doubt if more drugs were legal, more Americans would being doing them to get high, just like alcohol. And as we all know, a stoned America is stronger, smarter, and more effective America

Only problem with that statement is that we could also say that "we all know a fat and lazy America is a stronger, smarter, and more effective America." Are you proposing we outlaw fast food, tv, and internet chatrooms? After all, some people abuse those as well and let themselves get fat and lazy. Why doesn't that "slippery slope" analogy apply here?

[mthalo]

Well, no doubt if more drugs were legal, more Americans would being doing them to get high, just like alcohol.

I fail to see why taking a substance to feel good is so bad for all of the society. For certain individuals, it can be harmful as it masks a deeper set of problems, but is that any reason to throw the guy in prison?


How many people go shooting when they want to relieve stress? That's also a potentially dangerous activity.

(And NO! I'm not stoned right now, I'd saying "dude" a lot more if I was )

[Denny Hansen]

A lot of this topic has revolved around marijuana and alcohol. I’m 51 and have never so much as taken a hit off a joint and have no desire to do so. Still I believe the analogy between the two, by and large, is a good one.

My problem is with “harder” drugs. I am personally acquainted with one man that has had his life turned upside down when forced to raise two grandchildren (from two separate daughters-in-law) when they became addicted to meth. The children were neglected and abused before they were removed from their “home.” Think legal, purer meth would have solved the problem? I doubt it, and anyone who thinks that the user is just harming themselves, in my not so humble opinion, has never been exposed to the aftereffects.

I personally don’t give a diddly if they legalize pot tomorrow. Besides becoming lazy couch potatoes, and only aspiring to become the Assistant Manager in charge of French Fries at the local Micky D, the few pot smokers I know have not hurt anyone but themselves. Meth, crack and the other drugs? Nuther story entirely. YMMV.

Denny

[Eghad]

Meth is a problem and folks are going to be getting thier hands on it whether it is legalized or not.

The problem that is killing us is that meth and other drugs can be made outside our borders. On top of that there are large profits to be made by smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S. Until you kill the profit for selling illegal drugs all we are doing is pretty much spitting into the wind and making criminals into millionaires and billionaires, who in turn corrupt our legal system and society with these ill gotten gains. Take the profit motive out of drugs would be the first step in doing something positive instead of the neverending rat race we are in now. You kill some of these cockroaches making and selling this junk and more jump up to take their place. Might be the time to make some hard choices and let natural selection take the weak who wish to exit stage left by drug use.

[LSU12ga]

I remeber seeing a study.....

Researchers said they were particularly interested in the survey results of marijuana use in the Netherlands, known for its relatively permissive drug laws.

While marijuana use was relatively widespread there -- 28 percent of 10th graders had tried it, compared with the European average of 17 percent -- four other European countries, Ireland, France, the Czech Republic, and Britain, had higher rates, as did the United States

nytimes article

I think the main reason pot leads others into harder drugs is becuase of the people you spend your time with. If you spend your time with and begin socilizing with drug users and dealers, then eventually you will be lead towards harder drugs.

[Rich Lucibella]

Two questions for you, Denny:
What do we currently do about abused children of alcoholic parents?
Is that a better answer to the problem than handing out, nationwide, 6 year sentences for possession of, say, more than 1 liter of alcohol?

Rich

[Denny Hansen]

Rich,
1) Sadly enough, in most cases, nothing at all is done as most states only physically remove children from their homes as a last resort. If child protective services does take a hard line in extreme cases, the children are put in foster homes (yes, paid for by the state.)

2) No, it’s not.

Denny

[tyme]

Does the drug war reduce the number of dangerous or non-functional addicts, or the number of overdoses?

Does the drug war help keep functional, non-dangerous drug users integrated with society?

Does the drug war reduce violence in society?

Is the drug war a good use of the many billions of dollars we spend on it?

[Denny Hansen]

For one thing, there is a huge difference between casual user and abuser. Everyone needs to understand that. Do I think the occasional pot user should be jailed? in my opinion, no.

I’ll leave this open for a bit longer as I normally don’t close a thread with me having the last word. However, this could be argued ad nauseam:

Do legal drugs reduce the number of dangerous or non-functional addicts, or the number of overdoses?

Do legal drugs help keep potential abusers/addicts integrated with society?

Do legal drugs reduce violence in society?

Do legal drugs offer anything for society to profit from, given the track record of abusers not showing up for work, going on welfare, and placing a strain on emergency services?

Denny

[Eghad]

Are we winning the "war on drugs" or maintaining the status quo? Drug use had been around a while its not something that just happened in the 1960s and 70s. Once upon a time you could buy it over the counter and didnt have to be worried about it. Laws were passed around the early part of the last century to change that. Has any of it made a difference?

[tyme]

That clearly illustrates why the debate never goes anywhere.

People who are pro-drug-war argue from the perspective that any change from the status quo must be carefully justified. (unless it involves banning new drugs by adding them to the DEA's drug schedule... in which case, full speed ahead!)

People who are pro-legalization argue from the perspective that drug-neutral laws should be the theoretical starting point, and drug bans must be thoroughly justified.

[Don Gwinn]

Denny, the hole in that argument is that crystal meth didn't exist before The War On Drugs. Where did it come from? Can the Drug War that created it really be expected to solve the problem? By what mechanism?

[ATW525]

Denny, the hole in that argument is that crystal meth didn't exist before The War On Drugs. Where did it come from? Can the Drug War that created it really be expected to solve the problem? By what mechanism?

Desoxyn is the brand name that d-Methamphetamine hydrochloride is sold under. Methamphetamine has been around since 1919 and Desoxyn has been around since the 1940's. The drug wasn't invented because of the drug war, only the techniques used to synthasize it illegally were.