Opinions - What effect drugs have on society.

[Police Officer]

I know alot of you will dismiss this as propoganda. But if nothing else maybe some of you will understand how/why the majority of the civilized world thinks like we do. (not calling you all uncivilized)

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...conomic_costs/

P.S. It dosent just cover the economic impact.

Have a read. Tell me what you think.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I applaud the way you're trying to talk to us about the issues that divide us. Take it easy

[Each Hit]

the majority of the world does not think like you do. the united states has the highest incarceration rates, the higest prison population, and the most severe punishments for drugs of any developed country.

and anything approved by the white house is some sort of propaganda by default. they wouldn't let us see it if they didn't agree with it...

you know if marijuana was legalized and taxed, the government would make money from it instead of losing money trying to fight a losing battle. police officers like yourself would have more time to fight real crimes, like gang violence or identity theft or rape.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very true.

[Police Officer]

I cant speak for Police Officers as a whole on this. In the last two years I havent had one identity theft or rape go unsolved. I also have, and by a great margin, the largest number of drug arrests in my county. But then again, I firmly believe that somewhere around 80% of the crimes where I live wouldnt happen were it not for meth heads doing bad shit to finance their next high.

[Each Hit]

i'm glad you're catching those offenders.

concerning the thieving "meth heads," could they not just as easily be labeled as thieves and crooks?? why does the drug they use become the scapegoat for the crimes they commit?? and if it is the drug to blame, why punish the people by locking them up and ruining their lives even more instead of getting them clean in rehab and helping them get a job and get away from the drug?? obviously, not everyone wants to be saved and some really need to be locked away, but if society is going to blame the drug for the crime, then why punish the addict that wants to quit?? if the person is to blame, then why is the drug illegal??

[Police Officer]

Well, most of my collars will be strait up with me and tell me they're robbing people to finance their meth addiction. Most will also tell me that they're not ready to quit because they dont see it as a problem.

You have to understand that I'm not some college professor, or some geek that sits in an office all day collecing data to make a pie graph. My beliefs are based largely on what I see and hear.

[dirk]

a couple of questions for Police Officer,

1. How much it costs to finance a meth habit, (I have no idea, perhaps you could give us a rough daily estimate)?

2. If the drug was legal, like alcohol is, and the chain of profiteering criminal gangsters involved were taken out of the equation, how much would it cost then?

3. If illicit drugs in general were legalised and controlled (like alcohol is) would you still have a job?

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by dirk

If illicit drugs in general were legalised and controlled (like alcohol is) would you still have a job?

Of course he would. Even with all drugs legalized, there are always thieves, robbers, kidnappers, rapists, murderers, etc. Police was also present before the US started the "War On Drugs" with the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914.

The US could easily reduce these costs, not only by legalization, but by a more tolerant drug policy. They should offer rehab to addicts instead of prison, stop promoting drug criminality (drug tests prevent drug users from getting a job and thus promote criminality), and in some cases, use substitution therapy. They do this in Europe with heroin, and this has helped many addicts to have a productive life. They could easily do this with meth in the US.

But they won't. It's called "zero tolerance".

P.S.: In Germany, experiments have shown that a heroin addict who gets prescribed heroin costs about 30 EURO per day but saves over 65 EURO by not having to steal, rob, etc to get his next injection. So much for the costs of drug abuse.

[zera]

Well let's read the report:

The economic cost of drug abuse in 2002 was estimated at $180.9 billion. This value represents both the use of resources to address health and crime consequences as well as the loss of potential productivity from disability, death and withdrawal from the legitimate workforce.

Hmm, interesting. I see that this report fails to distinguish between the cost of actual drug use and the cost of the government's response to drug use... Let's see how this effects their estimates.

Well according to the executive summary approximately 8.7% of the cost is related to health-care issue. According to the report the biggest cost associated with this is the treatment of HIV, which would be an order of magnitude smaller, if needles weren't controlled. In Switzerland and England where needles are not controlled the rate of intravenous infection is less than 1/4 what it is in America. This same argument can be applied to the cost of treatment of Hepatitis and the treatment of Turbeculosis (if base pipes weren't controlled).

Crime victims health care costs should absolutely be almost completely thrown out as well. The vast majority of crime related to drug use has to do with inner city distribution violence. Nations with a rational drug policy like Switerland and Holland have tremendously lower crime rates. The hospital and ambulatory costs, and the health insurance administration costs should decrease proportionally as the medical consequences cost decrease.

I'll be very very magnanimous to the drug warriors and assume that the crime and disease rates would only decrease to 33% of their current rates if drug policy was liberalized (in reality the evidence probably points to around 20%). The total cost associated with "medical consequences" according to the report is $6768m, so $4512m is due to the US drug policy, not drug use.

Let's jump ahead to the other component of health care costs, "Community and Federal Specialty Treatment" and "Support," which consists of Prevention, Prevention Research and Training. Well what this basically comes down to is rehab costs. The majority of people in rehab are there because the court mandates that they go or because they failed some mandated drug tests. If we legalized drugs these people wouldn't need to go rehab. Also if drugs were legalized we wouldn't need to run the ridiculous "This is your brain on drugs" commercials that make up the majority of spending for "Prevention".

But we'll be generous to you once again and assume that these costs would only reduce to 75% of their original level. That's $2268m chalked up to drug policy.

Now let's jump to the major cost according to the report "Productivity." Suprise, suprise the major cost here is crime, namely incarceration. Now I've never heard of a drug that incarcerates people, oh wait that isn't drugs that incarcerate people, it's the police and the DEA. Maybe what this report should really be entitled is "Cost of living under a fascist moralistic state, that doesn't understand it's constitutional limits." The cost of incarceration and crime careers is a whoping $66,671m. The other major cost on productivity is premature death.

Guess what, the vast majority of drug related premature death either comes from drug related crime or drug impurity (mainly quinine used to cut heroin and the various cutting agents in coke). Both of these things would dissapear entirely if drugs were legalized, mainly because corporations with major assets and a legal precense tend not to risk them by cutting their products with quinine. Drug abuse related illness is also included as a major number. The combined cost of these two things is $58,098m. Of course they'll still be idiots around who want to go through 5 grams of blow in a night and kill themself (of course if all heroin was mandated to be sold with Naltoxtrene and coke with beta blockers and the like we could greatly reduce even pure overdoses). Not to mention the fact that people are far more likely to seek treatment sooner if the substance isn't illegal. So let's be conservative and say that 25% of these overdoses and illnesses are purely unpreventable (fucking idiot left home, forgot his Naltoxtrene, and shot up an eightball in a night). Cost associated with the drug war $43,573m.

The other cost component was "Other." The major cost here is Criminal Justice System, which contains Police Protection, Legal Adjudication, State and Federal Corrections, Local Corrections and Federal Spending to Reduce Supply. The other major cost is Private Legal Defense. Hmmm, now this just may sound a little crazy, but maybe if drugs were legal I don't know we wouldn't have to spend money to you know, prosecute and throw people in jail for using drugs. Just a though. Total expenditures related to these (which you cannot possibly say would still exist if drugs were legal) is $35,926m.

So out of the supposedly 180 billion that drug use costs, a very conservative estimate says that approximately 153 billion of that only exists due to the drug war. Which of course that actual drug users only cost the US economy 27 billion. Our conclusion therefore is that police, politicians, and the DEA cost the US economy 5 times as much as every dope smoker, junkie, crankhead and drug pusher in America. The only thing a rational person could conclude in the face of such evidence is that a war against police and politicians (by fighting and opposing them at every single opportunity) would be far more sensible than a war against drugs.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good post!
	excellent post.
	nice dissection. Good job.
	bango!

[Nagognog2]

Not to sound like some college professor, or geek with a pie-chart (I throw 'em at people I don't like) either, but I've found the more educated people are the less likely they'd end up hooked on things like meth or heroin.

And education requires honesty in the classroom. If I told kids, as an authority figure, that 2 + 2 = 5 I'd expect the kids to find out I was either an idiot or a liar. And I'd doubt the kids would listen to another word I said. Except to goof on me and laugh.

But here comes the D.A.R.E. program with tales of marijuana making kids turn into heroin addicts overnight and grow horns. And Joey and Suzy go home and see their older brother smoking pot now and then and doing fine. Idiot or Liar? Hmmmm....Now the D.A.R.E. program tells Joey and Suzy that meth is bad, mmmmkay (Mr. Macky)? Now there's some kid who has some meth...

Education requires being honest with your students. If you don't truly know the subject, they will find that out. And listen attentively to the next voice they hear.

It's time this nation made lying to kids in the classroom a criminal offence. And tossed those who don't truly know their subjects out the door. Both are doing far more harm than good - just as much harm as the meth-dealer in the bushes.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by dirk

a couple of questions for Police Officer,

1. How much it costs to finance a meth habit, (I have no idea, perhaps you could give us a rough daily estimate)?

2. If the drug was legal, like alcohol is, and the chain of profiteering criminal gangsters involved were taken out of the equation, how much would it cost then?

3. If illicit drugs in general were legalised and controlled (like alcohol is) would you still have a job?

1. Usually about $20 a day on the lower end. A guy I keep arresting for ALL KINDS OF SHIT is spending between $150 and $200 a day.

2. I imagine it would be pretty cheap, no way of ever knowing that.

3. I believe the number of Police in this nation would double.

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

3. I believe the number of Police in this nation would double.

Why?

Now, for the report.

I strongly agree with zera and will not be presenting much else new to zera's post, but I'll go ahead and include the direct quotes from the summary page and comment as well.

The healthcare costs only represent 8.7% of the negative economic impact drugs are having according to the pie chart. It also seems mostly to incorporate the cost of HIV/AIDS which can easily be prevented by simply not sharing needles. A better harm reduction campaign could lessen the healthcare cost. Also, it is difficult in many areas to obtain sterile needles and by increasing their availability (and better informing the public as to where they can attain such) the spread of disease through this route of administration could be greatly reduced.

Economic losses due to a decrease in productivity represent the largest portion of loss coming in at 71.2% and the summary reports:

The greatest share of productivity loss is from criminal activities, including losses because 660,000 offenders were incarcerated and others pursued crime careers to pay for their drug use. Together, there was a loss of about 1 million person years of effort that could have and arguably would have been available to the legitimate economy if these individuals had not been involved with drug-related crime. There were an estimate 23,500 drug-related3 deaths from all causes (e.g., overdose, poisoning, homicide, HIV and hepatitis B/C) in 2000, the most recent year with available data. Trend comparisons with earlier years are problematic because the US (and world) mortality diagnostic system changed in 1998. The mortality losses represent the present discounted value of lost lifetime market and household productivity. At a 3 percent discount rate, this value averaged about $1 million per death.

Here, the greatest factor seems to be losses due to drug-related crime. Many become involved with criminals through drug usage because of the illegality. Many criminal organizations also thrive off of money made off of drugs. Therefore, legalizing drugs would greatly decrease such crimes. Also, most losses are due to incarceration because of the illegality of drugs. As for the deaths, these also could be reduced by better harm reduction campaigns because, let's face it, the "just say 'no'" approach isn't proving to be effective.
Then, there is the loss related to "other" which incorporate 20.1% of which this is said:

The final major component of costs came to $36.4 billion in 2002. These primarily concern costs associated with the criminal justice system and crime victim costs, but also include a modest level of expenses for administration of the social welfare system. Figure 5 displays the trend in costs of these other impacts of drug abuse for each year between 1992 and 2002.4 Between 1992 and 2002, the costs for the other effects of drug abuse rose at a 6.5 percent annual rate...The largest detailed component of these costs is for state and federal corrections at $14.2 billion, which is primarily for the operation of prisons. Another $9.8 billion was spent on state and local police protection, followed by $6.2 billion for federal supply reduction initiatives. Significant amounts of our nation’s criminal justice resources are estimated to go towards drug abuse. In 2002, the most recent year with publicly available data, there were almost 330,000 persons incarcerated for drug specific offenses and an estimated 135,000 for income-generating or other crimes attributable to drug abuse. There were about 1.5 million arrests on drug specific charges and another half million for offenses attributable to drug abuse. In total, about 34 percent of the prison and jail population and about 15.5 percent of arrests were attributable to drug abuse. Crimes attributable to drug abuse include “drug specific” offenses such as sales, manufacturing and possession of illicit drugs and also a quarter to a third of income generating crimes (e.g.,larceny, burglary) that were committed by drug dependent individuals in order to finance expensive drug addictions.

Once again, these are mostly costs related to the "war on drugs". It also cites a rise in drug abuse. There should be a decrease if the drug war were actually effective. The summary seems to mostly be a case against the war on drugs although the government spins it such that it is being presented as a case against drugs themselves, of course. It's entirely irrational. The "war on drugs" was founded upon ignorance and continues because of this sort of ignorance.

But, people are very often not guided by reason so I suppose it is to be expected. This does not, however, make things less saddening.

I admit I haven't read the rest of the report yet, but I plan on doing that later. At the moment, I feel more inclined to wander away and read a newly acquired book waiting for me.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

Why?

Well I see the effect that illegal drugs have on our communities now. If those same drugs were legalized and made available in mass quantities to the general pubic I think that there would be a major problem. Well of course you have the argument that they would be regulated and the amount you could be prescribed or even buy openly would be restricted. Not going to work. Oxycontin is a prime example.

[CrookedEye]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well I see the effect that illegal drugs have on our communities now. If those same drugs were legalized and made available in mass quantities to the general pubic I think that there would be a major problem. Well of course you have the argument that they would be regulated and the amount you could be prescribed or even buy openly would be restricted. Not going to work. Oxycontin is a prime example.

SWIM begs to differ.. SWIY forgets, that when the criminal element is removed, it could become okay for people to use drugs.. With the stigma removed, people would be able to get jobs, rather than failing a piss test, so they could afford to buy their drugs..

If one takes a looks at the statistics of addicts, the number of addicts is relative to the population as a whole.. There is a pretty even rate of people who get addicted, statistically.. By allowing illegal drugs to be legal, use may increase, slightly, but the number of people who become addicts would probably remain very close to the ratio it's been at since the beginning of time..

SWIM fails to see how allowing more drugs than just alcohol, would cause any more problems than alcohol does.. Almost all the drug users SWIM knows, although somewhat fearful of the law, don't abstain because of the threat.. Instead they have to deal with shadier people to get them, have to spend more hard earned income, and generally have to take much more risk than someone who wants beer or cigarettes. Yet, for many drugs, there is actually much less risk involved with the highs created on cannabis, etc, versus alcohol..

The laws would have to be adjusted slowly, and the education system would need to be revised to start teaching the truth.. Ad campaigns about drugs would need to be more truthful, and treatment centers would probably be more accessible and popular, or become this way..

It would cause a drastic change, but SWIM believes the minor havoc it caused would even out as the truth about drugs was revealed and accepted into modern society.. It would take true education and tolerance, rather than fear and lies that the current system was founded on to make an improvement. However, it would improve in the long run, rather than just get progressively worse, as has been the case since the 30's.. At least that is SWIM's prediction..

If SWIY tries something over and over, and it produces the same results, what makes SWIY think that doing it again or even more, would produce any different results? Sometimes when the same thing over and over doesn't work, it's best to try a new approach. At least SWIM thinks that makes sense..

BTW, does SWIY think thier job busting people who use drugs is having any impact on society's drug use as a whole? If so, then why does America continue to spend more and more each year to combat drugs and fund the drug war?

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I cant speak for Police Officers as a whole on this. In the last two years I havent had one identity theft or rape go unsolved. I also have, and by a great margin, the largest number of drug arrests in my county. But then again, I firmly believe that somewhere around 80% of the crimes where I live wouldnt happen were it not for meth heads doing bad shit to finance their next high.

Also, ever wonder if meth were easily availale at the drug store and it wasn't illegal to buy, that meth heads would still rob and steal to get it, or does SWIY think they might just get a job and be able to afford it much cheaper, seeing as the only reason it even costs anything is that the black market and the routes to making it are so controlled?

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well I see the effect that illegal drugs have on our communities now. If those same drugs were legalized and made available in mass quantities to the general pubic I think that there would be a major problem. Well of course you have the argument that they would be regulated and the amount you could be prescribed or even buy openly would be restricted. Not going to work. Oxycontin is a prime example.

And another thing, seeing as how oxycontin is controlled, what are the benefits of controlling? Doesn't seem to stop anyone from using it, does it? If that were the case, then the laws should have curbed the use, yet instead the rate of use seems to climb, regardless of the laws.. Did SWIY see crack use decline when they raised penalties? I'll answer that, nope.. Just more black people are in jail for selling it, since it is somehow worse than the powder cocaine that white people are using in suburbia..

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well I see the effect that illegal drugs have on our communities now. If those same drugs were legalized and made available in mass quantities to the general pubic I think that there would be a major problem. Well of course you have the argument that they would be regulated and the amount you could be prescribed or even buy openly would be restricted. Not going to work. Oxycontin is a prime example.

Police Officer, I think you need to come to terms with the fact that illegal drug use ALREADY IS a "major problem"!!!

People are always going to abuse drugs. Alcohol is a prime example.

The main issue with concern to decriminalization of drugs is harm reduction.

I don't see hookers sucking cock and selling snatch just to get a fix of Oxy; nor do I see gangs of thugs ripping off people and doing drive-bys in order to gain more turf to sell Oxy's.

That's just ridiculous.

I do; however, see our state police made to visit pharmacies and doctor's offices, acting as bean-counters in order to keep tabs on prescription meds while the meth epidemic (and the crime that it spawns) worsens.

[Bajeda]

The economic cost of drug prohibition in 2002 was estimated at $180.9 billion. This value represents both the use of resources to address health and crime consequences as well as the loss of potential productivity from disability, death and withdrawal from the legitimate workforce.

Fixed it.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

But here comes the D.A.R.E. program with tales of marijuana making kids turn into heroin addicts overnight and grow horns. And Joey and Suzy go home and see their older brother smoking pot now and then and doing fine. Idiot or Liar? Hmmmm....Now the D.A.R.E. program tells Joey and Suzy that meth is bad, mmmmkay (Mr. Macky)? Now there's some kid who has some meth...

I know that everyone likes to call D.A.R.E. stupid. Okay, I guess I agree that marijuana is a gateway drug. When someone uses marijuana for a long time, then using illegal drugs becomes ok and acceptable. Not a big deal. Desensitizes people to drug use. Well if using drugs is not a big deal then its not as much of a big deal the first time a person is given the opportunity to use meth. This isnt just what I hear on TV commercials and jazz like that. This is what I've been told by meth and crack users. It makes perfect sense to me.

I don't care if in D.A.R.E. the instructors told kids that the first time you ever smoked marijuana you would die on the spot and go strait to hell. If that would keep just one single child from trying meth, I would be just fine with that. I would suggest that you speak with a meth addicts mother, father, younger sister, etc...if you disagree.

Drugs have to be regulated. I know everyone hates the government. I don't. While a small minority can take care of themselves, the majority of the general public cannot. Disagree? How many people do you know that live on welfare? Or, how many people do you know that live on social security? To a great degree the general public NEEDS the goverment to help give guidelines on how to live. Thats why we have laws.

Laws are enacted out of necessity, not "Just because." Cocaine, heroine, and morphine are perfect examples. Drugs were not always illegal. Before suggesting that they be legalized because you like to do them, I would suggest that you look at history and check out what happened in the past and why unauthorized possession became criminalized.

[Mona Lisa]

I still think that even if recreational drugs were fully legalised that many people would abuse them; I also believe that drug use would still be socially unacceptable by most and that companies would continue to test for drugs.

It seems to me that people here on this forum are generally of higher than average intelligence and knowledge about substances, and can keep their drug use from getting out of control; but it doesn't remove the fact that many other users lack this self-control (and knowledge about the risks they're taking).

For my own selfish reasons, I'd love to see drugs legalised or at least decriminaled, but I can't somehow see it happening for all the reasons that the Police Officer has stated. The only exception I could see is that marijuana would be allowed and deemed respectable for the terminally or chronically ill (as is apparently already happening in some parts of the States).

It seems normal on this forum, but I still gather that for 95% of the population, that drug taking for fun is not acceptable (even if they occassionally do it or have done it, themselves). Most will regard it as a vice at best.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very good post.

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I know that everyone likes to call D.A.R.E. stupid. Okay, I guess I agree that marijuana is a gateway drug. When someone uses marijuana for a long time, then using illegal drugs becomes ok and acceptable. Not a big deal. Desensitizes people to drug use. Well if using drugs is not a big deal then its not as much of a big deal the first time a person is given the opportunity to use meth. This isnt just what I hear on TV commercials and jazz like that. This is what I've been told by meth and crack users. It makes perfect sense to me.

I don't care if in D.A.R.E. the instructors told kids that the first time you ever smoked marijuana you would die on the spot and go strait to hell. If that would keep just one single child from trying meth, I would be just fine with that. I would suggest that you speak with a meth addicts mother, father, younger sister, etc...if you disagree.

Drugs have to be regulated. I know everyone hates the government. I don't. While a small minority can take care of themselves, the majority of the general public cannot. Disagree? How many people do you know that live on welfare? Or, how many people do you know that live on social security? To a great degree the general public NEEDS the goverment to help give guidelines on how to live. Thats why we have laws.

Laws are enacted out of necessity, not "Just because." Cocaine, heroine, and morphine are perfect examples. Drugs were not always illegal. Before suggesting that they be legalized because you like to do them, I would suggest that you look at history and check out what happened in the past and why unauthorized possession became criminalized.

Marijuana use does not CAUSE people to use other drugs:

A new study challenges the often-used claim that smoking pot is a "gateway" to the use of harder drugs, an argument that has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy to keep marijuana illegal -- even for medical uses.

Rather, researchers from a policy-researching think tank suggest in the British medical journal Addiction that teens likely to experiment with drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens would do so regardless of whether or not they use marijuana first.

"Kids who have a high propensity to use drugs will use whatever drugs they have the first opportunity to use," says Andrew Morral, PhD, of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center in Arlington, Va. "Usually, their first opportunity is to use marijuana."

By creating a study model that simulates adolescent drug use patterns in the U.S., Morral concludes that half of American teens have access to marijuana by the time they are 16, but most aren't exposed to harder drugs until age 20. His model is based on a survey about drug use patterns of 59,000 Americans between ages 12 and 25 from 1982 to 1994..."There is a strong association between the use of marijuana and hard drugs," he says. "But there have been assumptions among many policy-makers that marijuana used by adolescents increases their chances of going on to use hard drugs. Our study demonstrates that assumption is not proven and that the gateway effect may not be the best explanation of that link."

Approximately 70 million Americans have tried marijuana, and nearly nine in 10 never go on to use cocaine or other drugs, according to federal statistics.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/54/65298.htm

Most who are inclined to do use drugs will probably begin with marijuana because it's readily available. Using marijuana will not cause them to go "buck-wild" and start using every drug put in front of them. Rather, some people will be drawn more to so-called "harder" drugs and some will not. Whether they have ever used marijuana is not a factor.

You cannot base what you belief in what addicts tell a police officer. People don't like to be held responsible for their own actions. Hardly anyone who starts by smoking marijuana will move onto becoming a crack/meth addict. These people chose to try a known addictive substance and then not exhibit self-control which led to addiction.

I am profoundly disturbed that you advocate lying to the general public. The vast majority of people who try addictive substances such as meth do not become addicts. Swim and her partner partook of two all-night meth use sessions. The substance was provided by some whom I would call addicts and they were swim's family. Swim and her partner did not find the substance particularly intriguing and never sought out the substance again. The addicts subsequently cleaned up their act within about a year or so. Things would have turned out much worse had they been put in jail.

How does putting drug-users in jail solve the "problem" of drug-use, Police officer?

I happen to have a cousin in jail at the moment (has been there for 5 years now) for being a heroin "mule". He overdosed on heroin while in jail. He didn't die, but I don't expect him to come out a better person.

Furthermore, my father has a citation on his record for marijuana possession which makes it incredibly difficult to find a good job.

Drug laws are hurting many members of my family and I am not happy about it to say the least. The public does not need "guidelines" for victimless crimes. This is what freedom is all about. One should be free to do whatever they wish with their life so long as one is not infringing upon the freedom of others. That's all there is to it.

What sources would you suggest one look at for the history of drug prohibition? I have already watched the documentaries.

I would also suggest this article: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Any others?

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well I see the effect that illegal drugs have on our communities now. If those same drugs were legalized and made available in mass quantities to the general pubic I think that there would be a major problem. Well of course you have the argument that they would be regulated and the amount you could be prescribed or even buy openly would be restricted. Not going to work. Oxycontin is a prime example.

I made a post concerning this in another thread: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...2&postcount=44

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

...Drugs have to be regulated. I know everyone hates the government. I don't.

True! Drugs (and drug use) need to be regulated, NOT stigmatized and prosecuted.

Of all the drugs that are illegal in the US now, there was a time when they were legal. During this period, there wasn't a rampant criminal enterprise behind the trafficking and general commerce of drugs as it exists today.

That's not to say that there was no drug abuse because anyone with any sense knows that drugs will be abused whether they are legal or prohibited.

A more appropriate way to pose the topic question might be:
"What Effect Do Drug POLICIES Have On Society?"

...and it might interest you, Police Officer, to know that most (if not all) of us here, do not "hate the government"; we simply do not TRUST our government. There's a big difference there that I hope you will eventually come to understand as you read and post in these forums.

I've seen more people than I ever hoped to encounter who surround themselves in an institutional environment where bureaucracy is so routine that it becomes a way of life. Much like an inmate who's spent most of his life in prison and cannot adjust to life on the outside, many government employees are just the same way in terms of how they've been pushing their country's policies and following government regulations for so long that they can no longer discern the difference between "government" and "country".

To these people, "country" and "Government" are the same; so, to exercise one's 1rst amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances (especially when established policy is challenged), it is not only considered counter productive, it is branded as being "counter-culture".

Love-of-country must equate to trust-in-government, and there is little or NO middle ground in closed-mind of the instatuiotnalized bureaucrat.

[old hippie 56]

Here is a link for some info into the making cannabis illegal.http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com/

[fatmanstan]

I know that it has already been mentioned a few times, but I can't help but add. The largest share of the loss (cost) in the report was from lost productivity, and the largest share of that, as stated by the report, was the fact that 660,000 people were incarcerated for drug offences and weren't able to work. I'm not familiar with the stats, perhaps you are PO. How many people are incarcerated every year for non-violent drug offences? And of these, how many are simple possession, even if of a larger quantity? And how many of those are cannabis related?

Believe it or not, cannabis use is not a menace to society, and prosecuting those that use it adds tremendously to your "socio-economic impact". If it was legalized tomorrow, you would remove the criminal-organization control of it's trade, people would no longer be prohibitied from holding certain jobs because they got caught with a few grams of pot in their jacket pocket, people wouldnt be thrown in jail and unable to contribute to society. Please give me one viable reason why cannabis should remain illegal, because as far as I'm aware, there isn't any. And this has been the finding of virtually ALL commisions and research groups that have been formed to look at this issue.

[El Calico Loco]

There seems to be a common belief among LEOs: if someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. It doesn't matter whether the law is right or wrong, because the offender knew (or should have known) that it was illegal; and, therefore, must suffer the consequences.

By this logic, imagine the following situation: a wave of health-nut vegetarianism sweeps the nation; meat and candy are outlawed. All kinds of popaganda are put forth about the evils of cholesterol and sugars, and about how the sellers of such products are hobgoblins who want to poison your children. Some who can't get over their protein cravings steal to support their habit because a hamburger now costs $50.

Anyone caught with "too many" chicken wings or candy bars must be a dealer; said individual deserves to serve the mandatory minimum. It doesn't matter if he's never harmed anyone's person or property; it doesn't matter if he has a wife and three kids and takes good care of them; he broke THE LAW. He must suffer.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add, 'within the limits of the law', for law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -- Thomas Jefferson


ECL

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nice Jefferson quote!

[AntiAimer]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I know that everyone likes to call D.A.R.E. stupid. Okay, I guess I agree that marijuana is a gateway drug. When someone uses marijuana for a long time, then using illegal drugs becomes ok and acceptable. Not a big deal. Desensitizes people to drug use. Well if using drugs is not a big deal then its not as much of a big deal the first time a person is given the opportunity to use meth. This isnt just what I hear on TV commercials and jazz like that. This is what I've been told by meth and crack users. It makes perfect sense to me.

Wha wha wait! Did you know, it's a fact D.A.R.E. actually pursways kids into doing drugs? Just like anti-drug commericals do?(Who hasn't gotten a laugh at atleast one of those commercials?) How else does a 6 year old in 3rd or 4th grade learn about such drugs? Then comes the BS propaganda they spread(Yes some is truth, most is dramatized BS) and as the kid gets older....like in middle school realises they've been LIED to. Then start trying the drugs they've been told not to do, themselves. So if you want a gateway theory, theres the true start. Doesn't take a drug to start a drug. But in this day and age where people think it's right to give there kids speed at the age of 6....anything can be a gateway drug..like caffeine.

Smurf is a long time Marijuana user and still realises the dangers of illegal drug use and smoke inhalation(Luckly this is only one route of administration, but the government nor cops will tell you that) All his info has came from research, not what some idiot only looking at his paycheck wants to make him believe. And what Marijuana has done for him, has made him come to the decision Marijuana is not more harmful then lets say Perscription drugs. With the added postives apon postives of studies done to proove the medical use, makes him look at Marijuana and the use of it not a crime in any wich way or form. This dosen't make me except illegal drug use and go on a binge. Downing any drug at random, thinking there will be no consequences. That's such a ignorant statement. Seems to me, whoever is telling you this, should be locked up. Because there must be something wrong in there head or maybe it's all that brainwashing, they lost touch with reality.

Really just makes you open your eyes alittle and see the truth. Illegal drugs can be bad, but they also can be good. Just like can be said with legal drugs.

When Smurf sees those "faces of meth" pictures, it dosen't make him go, "Hey Marijuana hasn't done that, must be a lie." But also, he refuses to just go off one source. Which everyone should do, use common sense and there brain. Research apon research shows you the dangers. Now, the choice should be in the eye of the beholder. As they do with Cigarettes. They want to be in denial, why not let there punishment come to them without authoritys. Because thats the only way people are EVER going to wake up. Hint's why Cigarette use is in the decline. Slowly but surely. While illegal drug use goes up and down. It's like sex, you can either use a condom and be at less risk of a STD or not and suffer the consequences. Both ways, your at risk no matter. But that's right, what about there family. We gotta make them pay in more ways then one. Like haveing there son/daughter be locked in prison, haveing them help them pay off there son/daughters fines, makeing the public aware there son\daughter uses drugs. Haveing there son/daughter still live at home because they can't get a good job. Thats the american way! Collateral damage is better then fixing the problem. Because hey, they wanna do drugs, we gotta get our share of the money too. Now not only is the problem effecting just on person, it's effecting there family and everyone else around them(Tax payers).

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I don't care if in D.A.R.E. the instructors told kids that the first time you ever smoked marijuana you would die on the spot and go strait to hell. If that would keep just one single child from trying meth, I would be just fine with that. I would suggest that you speak with a meth addicts mother, father, younger sister, etc...if you disagree.

So your saying corruption is better then honesty, not surprised comeing from a policeman. A system can only work if there's honesty. Hint's why it hasn't so far. Also how is telling a kid smokeing Marijuana can make them die at first puff, going to stop them from not useing meth? Makes no sense. Wouldn't it be better to tell the truth and say, "While smokeing Marijuana may not kill you first puff, the same cant apply to METH, which could kill you first puff" Then go into the differences between both substances and how there made and such. Going through the postives and negatives. Makeing the kid actually REALISE the problem. Which they dont do. METH is a problem, don't need to talk to the parents who have a son/daughter who's a user to know this. The only thing Smurf would ask them is, "Well was it first Marijuana? Then you got on there butt about it, then they started with METH?" So you'd rather have them on METH then Marijuana. Be more logical to have a pot smoker then a meth user. The just say NO approach does not work. So there has to be some type of agreement parents need to come to with there son/daughter who wants to experiment. Make it easier for them to do such drugs in the safety of there own homes, avoiding alot of the BS illegal drug use can bring. Also allowing them that, "well I tryed it". Helping them not become addicted and still live a productive life.

Seen it to many times, kids going down the wrong path simply because there parents wanted to be some drill sergeant and be strict as all hell. Then he/she wants to get high even more, starts with other drugs. And sometimes not always, ends with tragedy. To not only get high but effect there parents. Now wheres the logic in that?

Smurf know's if his parents would have let him smoke at home. So many other drugs, wouldn't have been tryed. Of course still experimentation would have happened. Its inevitable. But the logical thing would have been, why not just go home and get high. Safer and not much risk. This would also allow so many kids to have a clean record. Allowing them not to get sucked into that criminal life. Like becomeing a felon, not being able to get a good job to survive. Leading them back to the reason why there a felon in the first place.

But the approach our Government takes and want's parents to take....simply makes things go backwards. Resulting in everyting Prohibtion brings and what we have now, includeing decreaseing rights at a constant rate.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Drugs have to be regulated. I know everyone hates the government. I don't. While a small minority can take care of themselves, the majority of the general public cannot. Disagree? How many people do you know that live on welfare? Or, how many people do you know that live on social security? To a great degree the general public NEEDS the goverment to help give guidelines on how to live. Thats why we have laws.

Yes drugs do need to be regulated. But first the government needs to be more regulated and stop trying to act like GOD. I hate the idiots in our government, not the government itself. Every single person, with the right knowledge, the right information and some common sense...can do drugs in a safe manner. But the approach we have now, pervents this from ever happening or even begin to happen. Because all there life they've always had that second mommy and daddy. Also Smurf doesn't know, one person who doesn't have a job liveing off the people(Welfare) nor social security other then retired old people. Guidelines ARE truely needed. Laws? Yes and no. Just depends on the true intention of that law. Also remember, most laws are not worded, user friendly.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Laws are enacted out of necessity, not "Just because." Cocaine, heroine, and morphine are perfect examples. Drugs were not always illegal. Before suggesting that they be legalized because you like to do them, I would suggest that you look at history and check out what happened in the past and why unauthorized possession became criminalized.

If people did more research, yet again it must come up. Then more drugs would be decriminalized and\or legal. People would see how unlogical makeing, just one example, Marijuana illegal. Why it got scheduled? Because racism. Yeah that sounds like the perfect reason to make a law against a PLANT, something that was here before we ever where...in other words "Just because" they can. Perfect example of why more regulation and people with some common sense not just looking how deep there pockets can go, need to be in the government. God's sake, we actually have a mandatory minimum sentenceing. No matter the the details of the offense. So the jurys are forced to only look at certain things, like if it's the law, you MUST give them such and such sentenceing. No matter if they only grew a few plants to a few thousand plants. No matter if this drug offender got 20 years, but this rapist only gets 5 and probation. So your actually already sentenced before someone ever looks at the case, wow....who ever thinks this is the right approach is truely a f*#ing idiot.

Anyways with corruption, the lie to the people approach, comes failure and greed. At the rate our rights are being decreased, soon everyone will be locked in a cage. With THE ALL SEEING EYE! watching them at all times(Hell, it's already on the money you hold in your wallet, only a matter of time.) Everyone will be the same, no one will be able to think. You can read, you die, like in the slave days. Because like you stated, the majority of people nowadays can't think for themselves. They need someone to hold there hand, because the learn as you live approach is decreaseing to zero. The system must be changed or we are doomed. People will be the end of humanity and not natural causes.

Yes drugs are bad, no matter what they are for. Some worse then others, but there must be line drawn when more problems arise from the laws then the actual drug itself. If there intentions where good, this wouldn't be happening. Because all that's doing is makeing a illusion, makeing it seem like it's worse then it really is. Actually makeing the problem.

Prohibition, is the cause for everything in this 'drug war' and money. To funding criminals to OD's, to drug addicts hurting other people to fund there needs. To the over crowded prison systems. Most problems that have came from drugs, wouldn't have happen if there was some regulation and legalization. Alot of people wouldn't even know about the drugs to even want to try the drugs. Without prohibition, there wouldn't be Organized crime(Or smart criminals) ran like a business. Nor would we have such advances in technology that we do nowadays. Like drug tests, fingerprints, the advanced 'secruity' measures and so forth. So you can't say SOME good hasn't came from prohibition. Alot of good, alot of bad, alot of human lose. The statement they always bring up is, "More people would do drugs, if they where legal" But thats a lie, maybe? even less would do them. But the rate wouldn't go up 200% nor would it go down 200%. The same people who do drugs now will do drugs later. The same people who say no now, will say no later. The same people who commit crimes now, will commit crimes later. It's just how life goes, reason why we all have that thing called a 'Brain'.

[mouthwater]

I probably have a difference stance on drug decriminalization than many other members of this community. I think the only practical way (at least for now) to witness drug decriminalization in our lifetime is if we (drug (ab)users) stop pushing so hard for full legalization. I don't feel I can trust the majority of drug (ab)users to use their substances responsibly, i.e. away from public places or in circumstances where nobody could be injured but themselves, all the time.

For this reason I stress a sort of regulated decriminalization, of many drugs. If a user wants to drop acid or eat boomers, they can get their drugs from a regulated supplier. But in order to be eligible to purchase the drugs, they should undergo yearly physical exams, provide past medical history, sign a document stating they will not sue the supplier for any damages done to their body, demonstrate intent of use and a mature understanding of the substance and its effects on the body and mind. Then, if they are eligible for their drug of choice, they can purchase it. However, if they purchase a drug at the facility, they are required to dose it that day, at that location (or the drug pick-up spot), buy purchasing a comfortable trip room to dose in. They can leave after they've come down from the drug. (I do feel that marihuana likely does not require such extensive regulation.)

The aforementioned structure could:
*take drug money away from gangs and illegal suppliers
*allow drugs to be taxed
*prevent users from driving or hurting others
*prevent young kids from access to certain drugs
*guarantee a pure drug for the consumer
*et cetera

I briefly read about anti-drug ads, which I think most here will agree, are a crock of shit. Anybody see the one about slomming (sticking leeches on myself") ? Let me tell you, if sticking a leech on me got me high, I'd stick a leech on me. But doing so doesn't, so the marihuana/leeches analogy is weak a fallacious. Sure, smoking marihuana and sticking leeches on yourself both offer a degree of peer pressure, but only one of them gets you high, and the ads should focus on why you shouldn't get high, not why you shouldn't conform (because its stupid).

I think the anti-drug ads need to be totally rehauled. I think they need citations for claims, and I think the general public needs to understand the difference between a real logical argument and pure rhetoric. I think children should be taught logic, philosophy, music, and a wide variety of subject choices instead of making them focus on the "core" classes (reading, math, science). The problem with education today, in my opinion, is that children are not passionate about learning; but, I believe if you give them a wide variety of classesto take, their parents and teachers teach them the importance of education, they watch more Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel, among others, they will find passion in certain subjects, and grow to be responsible & intelligent citizens. I don't feel children deserve so much propaganda.