So... let's get serious again. - Drug Laws?

[Gwazi Magnum]

So OT hasn't seemed to be doing so well with this new site yet.
To the point spam's saying OT is stooping lower than it.

So let's try to straighten out this sinking ship and get it sailing again shall we?

For drug laws.
Well, I'm sure we all know of all the weed legalization going on lately.
I can agree to that, way better than smoking or drinking and can actually be healthy depending on when/how it's used.
Not much more to say on that really.

For other drugs?
Personally I think legalizing them and keeping them government run and tracked will help in keeping crime rates, drug addiction, drug use etc. down.
Along with protect people from mixing and/or poorly made drugs. So it might be the next step we want to take.
However, obviously many of these can be dangerous so this probably more of a case by case matter.

Thoughts?

[Goldmarble]

Simple: Legalize them. All.

Why? What has prohibition given us? It drives people to illegal means to pay for their vice, it gives casual street thugs an easy access to absurd amounts of money, it funds gangs which cause much of the violence in the major cities of both America and Canada, these gangs export millions to Cartels, outside of our countries.

On top of that, there are thousands of non-violent, and otherwise "good" people who have had their lives destroyed, by being thrown in jail for possession.

The final thing I can say about prohibition is: It does not work. Is it working now? No. There is no case in which anyone can state that Prohibition has worked, ever. The intention of Prohibition is to stop people from using a substance. People have not stopped using these "illegal" substances, and no law will ever change that.

I have often heard from people who support Prohibition, that if everything was made legal, more people would want to start abusing a drug, or that people would start shooting up their heroin in public, or that all of a sudden, we'll have more people "under the influence" crashing and killing people in cars, etc. As if none of this happens already. I live in a small city, on a public bus, I have seen people doing heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, acid, to mushrooms. I have been passed walking on the sidewalk by people smoking weed, and seen people huddle in doorways doing crack and heroin. This is in the small city of Victoria, B.C. Canada. If it happens here, it happens in every goddamn city. Stop pretending it doesn't. People already get arrested for driving under the influence of narcotics. People already crash while under the influence of narcotics.

Oh, it will happen more often because now that it's legal, thousands are going to start doing heroin or crack? Really? Are you going to start doing Heroin, Crack, and E, just cause they're legal now? I'm not. Most aren't. Some will. But with legalization, comes education. Educate people to make more informed decisions.

Legalize them, regulate them, tax them. Above all however, educate people on the effects and risks.

[Feed]

Well, I'm not sure where all that information is coming from but it appears to be based entirely on opinion. Now, I am not going to go digging through hundreds of scholarly articles to refute any of that but rely on my experience with the system and my education which is to a certain extent dealing with analysis of why crime is an issue.

First of all, I will agree. Prohibition does not work. It is readily apparent that it does not work.

However, the connection with gangs is faulty. Gangs deal in a variety of different crimes on a varying number of levels. Drug crime is a big deal sure, but it isn't as troublesome as the media might have us believe. Drugs are an issue because they degrade the capacity of society to function. If everyone is getting high few people are actually functioning and getting things done. If you've ever done drugs harder than marijuana you know exactly what I am talking about. Furthermore, if gangs were not selling drugs they would be increasing their criminal behavior to include robberies, thefts, human trafficking, prostitution and other various crimes to achieve their goals. The typical street level dealer is not dealing because he wants to make his wallet fat without working hard, they are doing so because the means available to them cannot compete. With minimum wage being at $7.90 at least in the states I believe, it is much more worthwhile for these people to sell drugs. So they do. Take away their ability to sell drugs and perhaps eventually it will permeate society enough where those who would become criminals decide to take a different path but that is not a guarantee and it will not change the career criminals. As for the interaction with actual cartels, this is usually only one person per system of dealers. One person gets the shipment and it trickles down to the numerous dealers on the streets. Quite frankly, the authorities in general are cutting deals to get those people. That is how the authorities work. They will release the lesser guys to catch the big fish. So don't be confused with how prevalent drug crimes are, at least in the states. I see more people indicted for more serious crimes on a regular basis than anything drug related. And I do see the docket of new incoming charges every morning.

Are there thousands of good, non-violent people in jails across the country right now because of drugs, I think I can agree with that statement to a certain extent. The local lock up in my work place facility is generally packed up tight. But like I said, out of those people most aren't drug related. Generally speaking, the American court system provides offenders multiple opportunities to get their act together placing them in treatment programs and half-way houses to break the addiction before actually throwing them in jail for their crime. Of course, if they don't finish that treatment program and comply with any subsequent CCS they are than disciplined with the remaining time that they would have had to serve. However, let's be realistic. Despite what we see in movies or on the television with a lot of the harder drugs come a lot of different crimes. Users trying to find money to pay or their habit. Violence over turf wars and violence amongst other users as well as officers when it becomes an issue. So quite frankly, most of these people in jail for drugs are not good people. They are people that will expend anything just to get another fix as is common with any addictive substance. (And don't confuse this with something like internet addiction which is a completely different story.) As it were, these people are not truly good people. They don't deal with the reasons why they feel they need to get high they run from them and hide behind their addiction to not deal with them.

Now, let's assume we legalize all drugs from marijuana country-wide (which I would support) to heroin, meth, and this new Krocodil nonsense, or however it is spelled. Just imagine it, from coast to coast needles and baggies would line the streets and everyone would be... well dead... It is already apparent. Even those who believe they can handle addiction gets OVI's all the time. We have a giant addiction problem, at least in the states. Cigarettes and alcohol despite the medical ramifications are not only a billion dollar industry but there is zero discrimination amongst economic or social backgrounds. Now let's take legalized drugs. Do you really think people would be able to control themselves? People can't control themselves with the legal drugs, why would illegal one's be any different. Society would grind to a halt. The lowest paying jobs, that actually allow this country to run are generally carried by those who are most susceptible to picking up a drug addiction in the first place. We would end up with a lot of dumb people as they overdose without realizing enough is enough while they are actually high,

Yes, people will do drugs despite prohibition. Yes you can see people doing drugs anywhere, and if you walk down local city streets near the closest major city to me you may hear bums calling for a "nug." But this will still happen whether you make them illegal or not. And people will not become better educated. It doesn't not follow logically or rationally that legalization comes educations. At least, there will be no more education than there already is in the states. Schools teach their students about drugs. The medical community understands drugs more than anyone would care to read about. The education about cigarettes and alcohol is ridiculously expansive and people are still involved with exploiting them. So will I start doing crack if they make it legal, no. But would it convince others to do so, absolutely.

Now, let's get down to the real motive as why the government does not legalize every drug. Let's look into marijuana first. It has been legalized for personal consumption by a couple states for personal consumption. Is this legal? Absolutely not! What people are not educated on is the fact that while the states have made it legal, it is still a crime under federal law and because the state law clashes with the federal law the federal law will win. If the feds want to swoop in and start arresting state sanctioned dealers and people who grow for other uses than medical and users they still can. And why would they do this? Because the revenue from arresting people, ticketing people, and fining them brings in far more money than taxing drugs that are sold legally. If they were to legalize these drugs on a federal level, the increase in price would have to be high enough to cover that threshold which would force people back to the local dealers to get their fix effectively destroying the reason why you may be suggesting we legalize drugs. In my area, it is a $700 find for paraphernalia, which includes things like a bowl which may have resin in it. How do you suppose the government will tackle that? And quite frankly, it won't stop the more impressive crimes that I see on a daily basis.

As it were, legalizing weed is probably a good idea. It is less dangerous than alcohol, it may be less harmful than cigarettes given the shit they put into them and realistically it is nonaddictive. However, harder drugs would do more damage than people can deal with. One line of cocaine or one pile of ecstasy does have the ability to kill you. Now sure, driving drunk can do that more likely than not you are not going to die from one cigarette or one drink. To suggest making every drug legal is ridiculous because regulating and taxing them will not replace dealers just give them a reason to get out there and make real money. The government is selling them to you at this price, well here this one is ten bucks cheaper for the same amount. And do you really want the government interacting with the cartels anymore than they already are? That's a good idea when they are taking over entire neighborhoods in this country like little Havana down south.

Now we don't need to get into a debate over credentials or experience but making each and ever drug available legal would be, based on what I know of at least the American Justice System a terrible idea that would only be detrimental to the country.

[ApocalypticaGM]

@Feed: Making every drug available legal would be detrimental if we sold them exactly as they were today, absolutely. Cut and sold with other things added, with no regulation, and with only the desperate need to make a profit driving the business -- no doubt allowing that business would have negative repercussions. That said, in what America do you live in that this is how such a hypothetical could exist? We live in a country where a bill arguing for mandatory Kindergarten was and is still controversial in many states. If something like this ever became a reality it'd be riddled with stipulations and ultimately changed into an entirely new, regulated business. Your experience and points are absolutely valid, I don't mean to suggest you don't know what you're talking about as you clearly do and I respect that, but what we're talking about wouldn't likely act or be treated in the same way as what you're expecting.

I believe our evaluation of drugs is extremely outdated. Our expectations of how people act and the result of usage is based on an unregulated system where those in poverty are exposed to suspiciously created/obtained drugs and sold them by people who absolutely need them to become addicted. Drugs are cut with other more addictive materials and manipulated in such ways to ensure profit and not customer health. If we legalized drugs I'd expect it'd likely be a blend of how Colorado treats marijuana and how the pharmaceutical companies sell medications. Each drug would have a dosage, higher dosages of stronger substances may still be limited. The drugs are not necessarily deadly, quality and strength are very important. In America many of our veterans were given amphetamines throughout their services over the last several decades. While how they did this was deplorable, in my eyes, it is an example that we once believed drugs can be used positively and negatively. As a result we have medications that are comparable to street drugs today that we sell for medicinal usage (and many still use, legally obtained, for the occasional recreational trip). So is it that drugs are deadly and 'bad' or is that our casting them out completely has left only the worst that they may be?

I'll throw this out there. My room-mate spends 8 hours a day after a full day's work in front of his massive television gaming. He has more than $2000 of equipment purchased solely for this purpose and continues to do such before other basic necessities. When he stops, he becomes a bit off, very agitated. The guy clearly gets a rush and a happiness from this habit that I imagine is akin to the dopamine rush experienced by anyone when they find something enjoy. He likes it very much and despite it breaking many relationships, he feels it more important and inescapable. Why is this form of addiction less deplorable that of hard drugs? His health has taken a serious toll due to this constant habit (this coming from a guy who enjoys a game now and then too) and its absolutely life-consuming.

The fact is drugs, gaming, alcohol, these are all too often vehicles for escapism. We should focus our attention to improving lives and finding ways to use these escapist paths in order to enrich life rather than replace it.

[StarWight]

I will definitely be giving my op on this subject when I have time to sit down and post. That will be awhile though, not til much later this evening. That said, after the psychology courses I've taken that showed the origin of the drug laws (most of which were put into place by completely BS reasons), I will say I'm not against legalization--even if I myself am not a drug user. I would have some limitations though--I'll explain more when I have the time. That said, legalization, I think, is something I would support.

[Hank]

The United States of America is not ready for the legalization of all drugs. I could see it happening in the Netherlands, however. That sums up my opinion.

[mdk]

Some underrepresented truths, from somebody who thinks this is none of the government's business, and we should legalize most stuff anyway -- but you should probably still know these things.

1. Prohibition does not prevent all illicit activity, but it prevents a hell of a lot. The staunch remainder is the sort that would rather break the law than give up drinking, which is precisely what makes them such a dangerous element -- but it absolutely CAN bring down use. Iran is a dry country -- that's not an example to follow, I know, but it's an example to prove a point.

2. Legalization and regulation does not prevent illegal distribution. Especially potent example is moonshine, if you'll excuse the pun (but it is proof -- get it? Proof? aaaaaaah?). There's also an American black market for Tobacco. Remember we're talking about perfectly legal substances. It's still cheaper, easier, and stronger (as in more potent) for the 'criminal' element to produce and distribute. That trend is not going to change with harder drugs. The cartels have an insurmountable headstart; they will always win the price war, and legalizing will not rob them of their profits.

3. Meth is not a hobby.

4. Improving access, absent moral input, tends to increase both use and abuse. This is just as true for potentially-dangerous drugs like heroin as it is for internet usage during work.

5. Particularly with regards to drugs and human health, the real effects are often unknown and far more serious than you thought. For instance Ambien, a super-popular prescription sleep aid in common use for over a decade, was just demonstrated to increase heart attack risk by up to 50%, among other problems. Arguments such as '_____ is safer than ______' are almost certainly total bullshit, by which I mean, they're just as likely to be false as they are true -- one, or two, or ten, or a hundred, or a million case studies are incapable of demonstrating this comparison for a fact in almost any instance.

So, just some food for thought. As I said, lots of stuff should be legalized IMO. Plenty of stuff shouldn't -- there's no justification for shit like mescaline, bath salts, meth, arguably LSD and heroin..... okay so a lot of stuff. Whatever. I err on the side of freedom, but also, I don't like to err when I can help it. There's an awful lot of drugs we don't need to be fucking with.

[Brovo]

Legalize based on lethality and addictiveness. Use the Dutch model, change it based on cultural expectations and national circumstances. First use test zones like towns or counties. Measure changes in criminal, medical, and public perspective, happiness, and strength/stability over a period of time. Adjust as necessary. Put measures into place for proper balance of freedom and control. Cautiously apply countrywide. Repeat as necessary.

[ApocalypticaGM]

Brovo said
Legalize based on lethality and addictiveness. Use the Dutch model, change it based on cultural expectations and national circumstances. First use test zones like towns or counties. Measure changes in criminal, medical, and public perspective, happiness, and strength/stability over a period of time. Adjust as necessary. Put measures into place for proper balance of freedom and control. Cautiously apply countrywide. Repeat as necessary.

I like this.

I'd go so far as to even suggest modifying existing drugs so that the dosage is far more mild and safe for recreational use. Not saying we should do this for heroin, but there are other opiates quite similar like morphine or oxy that come with serious side effects, yet are legal in a limited form. I think that limitation is key. If we can change the lethality and addictiveness, but still sell a drug that gives a bit of that wanted feeling without nearly as much risk of overdose/addiction, people'd probably go for it.

[Gwynbleidd]

There are things we should legalize. Perhaps one day, all will be legalized. But, the first step is decriminalization; that's the most rational route. It's working pretty well in Portugal who has had that plan in place for 10+ years.

[Gwazi Magnum]

ShonHarris said
I like this.I'd go so far as to even suggest modifying existing drugs so that the dosage is far more mild and safe for recreational use. Not saying we should do this for heroin, but there are other opiates quite similar like morphine or oxy that come with serious side effects, yet are legal in a limited form. I think that limitation is key. If we can change the lethality and addictiveness, but still sell a drug that gives a bit of that wanted feeling without nearly as much risk of overdose/addiction, people'd probably go for it.

Part of the risk there which was highlighted on the past Guild by people is that if you offer safer versions, then people can just make "Super Drugs" with the extra kick people want and sell those in the illegal market.

To be fair though, even if that happened, use of illegal drugs should still be lower since there is at least a version of it that's legal so a number of people will just stick with that.

[mdk]

Caught this news article today, thought it was relevant to discussion.

[Brovo]

mdk said
Caught today, thought it was relevant to discussion.

And yet that's their choice to do those drugs. I don't agree with it, I think it's foolish and short sighted, but when they choose to do a substance that harmful of their own free will, you can't exactly stop them in the same manner that you can't stop a person from choosing to become an alcoholic or a person choosing to become addicted to cigarettes, or a person who non-stop binge eats McDonald's, or so on and so forth.

The only thing that can be done, logically, that won't waste billions of dollars every year and put teenagers in jail for smoking substances less lethal than tobacco or alcohol, is to educate the populace (without the scare tactics--those haven't worked before and they won't work now) and tackle the problem with hard numbers gained through test runs.

At the very least a healthier approach needs to be done... Financially and culturally, than a drug war whose decades of work has amounted to little or even no progress in stopping the drug trade. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result, after all.

[Turtlicious]

Brovo said
And yet that's their choice to do those drugs. I don't agree with it, I think it's foolish and short sighted, but when they choose to do a substance that harmful of their own free will, you can't exactly stop them in the same manner that you can't stop a person from choosing to become an alcoholic or a person choosing to become addicted to cigarettes, or a person who non-stop binge eats McDonald's, or so on and so forth.

The only thing that can be done, logically, that won't waste billions of dollars every year and put teenagers in jail for smoking substances less lethal than tobacco or alcohol, is to educate the populace (without the scare tactics--those haven't worked before and they won't work now) and tackle the problem with hard numbers gained through test runs.

At the very least a healthier approach needs to be done... Financially and culturally, than a drug war whose decades of work has amounted to little or even no progress in stopping the drug trade. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result, after all.

I agree with Brovo, and that makes me feel dirty

[Protagonist]

I have a few principles at work here:

1. Drug laws should target dealers, not users.
2. Pot should be legal, but cocaine and heroin should not be.
3. Even if it's illegal, it will happen. That does not mean it shouldn't be illegal. The government doesn't exist to eliminate crime, but limit it. For example, homicide will always occur, even if it's illegal.
4. The government should have a zero-tolerance policy for organized crime. We are far too lenient. The trick is, to make drug sales economically unprofitable. It is, theoretically possible that we could legalize it and put a very malicious price control on it. Another solution would be the use of focusing more effort and funding into fighting off these criminals. If the government was as concerned with keeping the streets clean as it was with say, spying on us, I just don't really see larger gangs being able to compete.