Opinions - What effect drugs have on society.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would resent that on ethical grounds (I am a firm believer in individual liberty and responsibility), but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. I could live with it. It would be a boon to society, and might even be better than outright legalization in a calculating, utilitarian sense.


ECL

[zera]

Originally Posted by mouthwater

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.)

It's a nice idea, but unfortunately we can't trust the politicians with this kind of power. The power to regulate or tax is the power to destroy. This would allow the state to make the rules so arcane and impossible that the drug would become de facto illegal (much like the Marijuana Tax Act). The next time public pressure came down to "do something about drugs," politicians would simply make them de facto illegal.

Much like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Substance Use is something that must be absolutely guranteed by some super-political (probably Constitutional) provision. Sure some people may be assholes when it comes to this freedom, but people are also assholes when it comes to free speech (free speech protects people that write Nazi propaganda afterall). It's a small price to pay to be free from state tyranny.

[kyuubi99]

The only reason that criminal organisations are involved with drug dealing is that there is money to be made there. (obviously)
If drugs were legalised and distributed by licensed manufacturers, there would be no money to be made by criminal organisations, since the licensed manufacturers would have a huge portion of the market and therefore (due to economies of scale) would be able to produce the drugs at a far lower price level than any criminal organisation. Thus erradicating criminal envolvement (unless ofcourse the government decides to tax the drugs extremely highly, which the wankers would no doubt do), and therefore significantly reducing crime

[Skeetastic]

To SWIM, it really all just boils down to a few drugs having any detrimental effect on society. For most drug users, it isn't about doing meth and crack and then committing crimes to fuel their addiction. Most users are like SWIM, moderate, for minor recreational value. SWIM believes that drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, crack and pcp are the only trouble drugs that people need to worry about. Those are the drugs you always hear about being associated to various crimes, not all drugs are that bad. When's the last time somebody committed a crime to keep their adderall addiction going? Or Marijuana? Or any weaker drug for that matter. It really is propaganda. It's the easiest way for people who are anti-drugs to say all drugs are bad when only a small fraction of them cause this much trouble. Everyone needs to look at the BIG picture here. Thanks for reading my rant. Hope it made a difference to some of you.

[IkBenDeMan]

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.

SWIM loves the fact the shit's illegal... it shouldn't be, but most cops don't care, and it's only a 'gateway' drug because, though the fast majority of users of it don't do hard drugs, most hard drug users use it... makes meeting people quite a bit easier for him. He doesn't even really like it that much, though, anyways. As far as why the laws were crated, most of them were created for racist reasons.. I mean, how do you think all the jazz musicians got heroin? Do you think blacks had trade with the middle east? Criminalization doesn't work, even if it sounds better than "prohibition." And SWIM's used meth once or twice, it wasn't nearly as addictive as he thought it would be, in fact, he doesn't really care much if he ever does it again. Yes, meth addicts are terrible, and yes, it's one of the worst drugs. Most of the people I know who do it thought don't smoke weed and a lot of them did T before they smoked a J.

[Bajeda]

Its been a while since the below quoted text was posted, but as I didn't really get the chance to read over it then and haven't seen it since, I'll respond to Police Officer's post now.

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.

Thats where education comes in. You can be desensitized to the concept of taking psychoactive substances recreationally in general (though we already have alcohol and tobacco helping that along, not to mention its been a part of human culture since umm.... oh yeah, we began to exist), but with proper education you can learn to differentiate between substances and make decisions for yourself as to whether the benefits outweight the costs.

If you smoke marijuana regularly and are offered meth, but know the risks of using such a substance, you are still extremely likely to say no, as meth is one screwed up substance.

Swim himself has tried just about every common recreational drug there is to use, including methamphetamine, but he hasn't smoked crack or used meth to get high. He used meth in low doses to feel the substance out, and in a few cases to help with concentration/academics. He found that he didn't care for it, it obviously had a dark side to it, and there were much better things to be had. The reason he didn't try to get high off it is from seeing what it could do to other people who only started using it shortly before, and from what he had read about it.

Similarly, swim knows a large number of people who will smoke shisha on an occaisional basis, but who absolutely hate cigarettes and won't even take a puff. Now this could be a case of lack of knowledge about shisa's negative effects and plenty of information on cigarette smoking, but for many its simply that shisha smoking is enjoyable and easy to keep to a minimum, while cigarette smoking doesn't have any social or entertainment value beyond the nicotine 'buzz' and has a good chance of becoming a nasty habit.

I don't think you give people enough credit. Think in personal terms. If you smoked marijuana on several occaisions if it became legal, just to try it, do you think you'd have any chance of ever trying meth (if it also became legal) knowing what you do know about it?

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.

Why don't we condone telling Hutus that they are superior to Tutsis and encouraging them to kill all the Tutsis because the Hutus have been ruled by a Tutsi government for a long time?

Oh wait, the Catholic Church already did that one, and look where it led....

The end does not justify the means. I'm sorry if you have come to feel that way about the so-called drug war, but its a misjudgment on your part. Otherwise, we might as well start practicing eugenics to get rid of 'undesirables'!

In fact, with your strategy, I think you'd have more of those kids trying meth in the long run. They would hear terribly bad shit about marijuana and meth, then some would try marijuana and not die, so they would figure meth can't be that bad either. This is a large part of how marijuana figures in as a 'gateway drug' I feel, among other things.

The truth can come in handy sometimes. I hope as a police officer, someone people should look up to in society, you set an example by being truthful. The fact that you are condoning lying to little children is very disturbing and depressing to me.

"It behooves us to think that it may profit us very little to win the war on drugs if in the process we lose our soul."
-Judge William Schwarzer

"For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest-- but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-John F. Kennedy

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, they should be regulated. They seem to lie at both extremes of regulatory control in our society though.

Drugs deemed as 'bad' - i.e. unprofitable, make people think for themselves and challenge the preconceptions of society, etc - are made illegal and extremely over regulated.

Drugs deemed as 'good', the ones companies can profit from and dole out like candy to the whole of society whether they really work or not, have a dearth of regulation controlling them at this point, thanks to the immensely powerful pharmaceutical industry.

Many people died or suffered greatly with the progressive advent of barbituates and benzodiazepines, as they were put directly into medical use without anyone really knowing jack shit about them. Prozac became a huge phenomenon even though its been shown to have more consistent effects on sexual functioning (not good ones) than on mood. Most of the big selling anti-depressants have been shown to have very slight efficacy over placebo. The pharmaceutical industry advertises to children, their parents, the childrens' and parents' physicians, the psychiatrists who also prescribe medicine, the people studying medicine, and the politicians who run the show, through many ways, much of them unethical.


We have a screwed up state of affairs right now. I'm all for legislation. It helps keep society together. The problem is that our society places such a high premium on money we end up with some truly fucked up legislation, which you can see today. While I think people should be free to ingest whatever substances they wish, there should be regulation over the people who have the power to develop and market these substances, and how they do so, for the sake of society. For now, the field of mental health care in the US is going down the toilet.


As to your feelings on the need for the government to provide laws, especially within the realm of this discussion...

"We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them."
-Alexander Bickel (Constitutional scholar)

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.

I think YOU are the one who needs to look at history and see why drugs were criminalized. I can't believe you even raised this an issue to support your arguement. You are right in one regard, laws aren't enacted 'just because', they are often enacted out of selfish, greedy, narcissistic, morally self-righteous, and ideologically pretentious sentiments from people who really don't give a damn about their fellow human beings.

To help you examine history, try looking at some of this media:

Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way
Illegal drugs and how they got that way - opium, heroi (If DL above doesn't work)
Illegal Drugs & How They Got That Way - crack & cocaine (Ibid)

There are plenty of books by respectable scholars you can check out at your local library as well, or even purchase online if you should feel so inclined!

Basically it was racism, xenophobia, greed, sensationalized yellow journalism, manipulation for political gain, general ignorance, etc. that got drugs illegal. And thats not even getting into the 1984 like concept of the 'War On Drugs'!

You could probably benefit by looking at our file archive, particularly the Drug Policy Debate section.


To finish, a final quote (I love these!) to ponder should you care to, if you even end up reading any of the above.

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln


Now have a great day, and don't take so much offense at the things said in the threads you post in. Arguments on the Internet aren't the end of the world, even if they are on serious topics!

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Great post!
	Brilliant riposte!
	excellent, well thought out post

[bcubed]

I WAS going to create a seperate thread about why legalization would benefit society, but got enough useful info here I thought I'd stick it on the end here. I'd also like to respectfully disagree w/ P.O. about what would happen in a legal-drug scenario. (Note that my baises are that someone who takes an interest in the illegal drug trade, as well as someone who harbors strong Libertarian attitudes about pleasurable vices and feels they ALL ought to be legalized (excepting stuff like kiddie porn and snuff films, obv.) I will do my best, however, to set aside my partialities and present an objective argument. I'd be especially interested in feedback from those holding divergent viewpoints.)

Though it's been mentioned before, let me reiterate (quoting the gov't's OWN SOURCES) about the main costs of drug use.

Lost productivity: $128 Billion
The greatest share of productivity loss is from criminal activities, including losses because 660,000 offenders were incarcerated...Together, there was a loss of about 1,000,000 person-years of effort that could have and arguably would have been available to the legitimate economy if these individuals had not been involved in drug-related crime.

Later on, the report mentions how another $36.4 Billion is "costs associated with the criminal justice system and crime victim costs." So, out of a stated $181 Billion economic impact, $164 or so is related to a great extent with the ongoing WOD. (Yes, I will be honest and admit that SOME of these costs would still exist even in a free marketplace.)

Also, it mentions that the costs are growing at a rate of 5.34% annually--in excess of population growth and GDP. That ought to give a rough estimate of how well the WOD is working. Consider that this increase is in spite of an aging demographic that--statistics show--ought to be taking less illegal drugs as they age.

Now, I'll try to refute P.O.s assertion that the need for police would double in a legal-drug scenario. I'll start with the simplest arguments and then on to the more involved.

1. The US ALREADY incarcerates far more than all other developed nations. Here's a comparison (per 100,000 citizens): US:715 UK:140 AU:114 GER:96. So if "more WOD"="less drugs" then the US ought to have far and away the least amount of drugs (and associated crime) of any of these nations. I daresay this is not the case. What's the counterargument? "Well, 715 MIGHT not be enough, but if you'd just let us push it up to 1,500 or so, THAT oughtta do it!" How far must the WOD be carried before it's apparent that it's ineffectual?

2. Prohibition (of alcohol or drugs) is essentially a "works project" for organized crime--and, in response, the criminal justice system. It's no accident that the "gangster era" in the US co-incided with prohibition. Crime, because "if Gin is outlawed, only outlaws will have Gin" Organized crime because the cultivation, transportation, distribution and selling requires a syndicate of some kind. I'm amazed anyone could look at alcohol prohibition and crime and not make the logical connection that the same operative force is happening with our current prohibition.

3. Crime associated with the cost of drugs, due to illegal status
3a. Any profession that presents a greater-than-average risk to life and liberty requires what economists refer to as a "compensating wage differential." For example, if two jobs have similar "skills, experience and responsibility," but one puts one at high risk for loss of life or liberty, it would require a wage differential and thus have a higher equilibrium price. All along the supply chain, HUGE risks are being taken that require correspondingly high wages. Add to that the fact that legal status prohibits (for the most part) planting, harvesting, transporting and selling in an economically efficient manner.
3b. Making all drugs illegal encourages dealers to sell the "hardest" drug possible to maximize profits. It's 50 years old, but in Junky, William S. Burroughs makes a great point about how selling heroin was a much better deal than selling pot, basically because there was more profit. Logically, if SWIM is a recreational user of a drug, there's only so much he'll pay for the stuff (an "elastic demand curve.") But if SWIM happens to be hooked, he'll most likely accept paying much more before he makes an attempt to pack it in. Studies with alcohol show that demand elasticity is inversely correlated to the amount of alcohol a person drinks. There is no reason to believe that doesn't apply to illegal drugs as well. So, one of the "unintended consequences" of "getting tough on pot dealers" is that it pushes the market towards more habituating substances.

4. Rather than deterring crime, high rates of incarceration perpetuate them. So the US elects to incarcerate far more of its citizens that almost all other countries. What happens? Well, now there's a large underclass of marginally-employable persons who have already shown a preference towards drug using and dealing. So, in spite of the seemingly logical "deterrant" philosophy of incarceration, high incarceration rates ensure that, once released, recidivism is almost certain.

5. The WOD perpetuates poverty in already poor neighborhoods. One way the poor get rich is via investment. This can take two forms: either sticking money in an investment for junior's education, or self-improvement such as advanced education for ones'self. Every person has an individual preference, and economic theory doesn't say much about WHY preferences are so. But one thing's clear: the WOD makes those in the (low level) drug trade (often poor, often minority, often without a lot of other options) MUCH less likely to invest in the future. Figure: if one expects to be dead or in jail in five years, how likely is one to make sure the IRA is fully funded? So the poor continue to fall behind the better off, due to investment preferences shaped by the WOD.

I'm sure there's more, but that's all that readily comes to mind. I especially like how illegality ensures that dealers will try to promote the most addictive drugs possible...

Reputation Comments on this post:

	good post
	good post, thanks for taking the time to write that out

[jhallward]

I've only read through the first page of this thread so what I say may be redundant, however from what I've seen nobody has done a purely economic assment of the war on drugs and the solution to the drug abuse problem in the united states. I'm going to provide just such an assesment:

The principle behind the United States Constitution (as has been stated earlier) is that one should have the full liberty to do whatever and however he or she pleases as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. The way this is extrapolated into the logic of drug prohibition is that drug use in society is said to have what's called by economists "externalities". In other words, the use of drugs causes damage to the rest of society, through lowered productivity, and (in the case of prohibition) crime and violence.

Prohibition and the "war on drugs" has been fairly conclusively shown to be ineffective, I'm not going to go into the details here, it's pretty much common knowledge the war on drugs is a complete and absolute failure, having shown itself repeatedly to be competely incapalbe of curbing drug use. A brief glance at the wikipedia article on "War on Drugs" will give you citations for this claim. Therefore, law enforcement does nothing to solve for the externalities of drug consumption.

Externalities exist for more than just drug use however, and looking at these other areas in society where externalities are produced, and examining how the externalities are accounted for can provide ideas for how to deal with the drug problem the United States is facing. Take polution for example. It has been found that the most effective way to control polution is to tax it/put quotas on the amount of polution one company can produce in a given period of time (the quotas can be bought and sold between companies so in effect, you've just got a more complicated tax system). The money made from this taxation is then used to benefit society to a degree equal to the costs incured by the polution. As a result (when this system is used) society experiences no net loss. The same principle could be applied to drug use if legalized. If legalized, drugs could be taxed and this tax money could be use to compensate for the externalities of drug use, effectly nullifying the cost of drugs to society, completely and definitely.

[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.

[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!

[Frankster420]

my 2 cents: why would drug use go up if drugs were legalized if even government authorities have admit that our nation's demand is being easily met? (especially if the government choose to keep the drug prices artificially high, which they already do with rediculous patent laws on legal drugs)

[xctico]

Nice post Mouthwater. quite an interesting idea for compromise... not very far from the Dutch model when you think about it... "you can do drugs but only at the locations we allow you too"..


But even more interesting the points regarding education and the inclusion of a much wider spectrum of concepts. I hope you dont mind but I passed the idea to my girlfriend [she's doing her doctoral thesis on education...]

[Evil GIR]

Doh, sorry just igonre me for now

[Darksanity]

The United States spend billions in health care in relation to obesity. There's a definite "obesity epidemic" in the U.S. Obesity kills thousands.

So how come McDonald's isn't illegal, there isn't anti-junkfood propaganda sponsered by the government (our money...), and there's no "War on Obesity" yet?

Conclusion : it's all bullshit

[mouthwater]

Originally Posted by Darksanity

there isn't anti-junkfood propaganda sponsered by the government (our money...)

Many cities and states have been supporting junk-food bans (1) and don't forget about the war on trans-fat (2), New York is already requiring restaurants to remove trans-fat from their food.

We've already tried making alcohol illegal, and it didn't work. SWIM is of the firm belief that every modern society needs an intoxicant, and alcohol is America's chosen inebriant. Tobacco producers are constantly receiving criticism from media and organizations, and users have been facing high cigarette taxes and smoking bans. SWIM thinks users should be able to use as much nicotine as they like, as long as they don't use taxpayers money to treat their tobacco-related illnesses later in life, if they get any.

SWIM thinks SWIY is underestimating the the pressure to 'crack-down' on fatty foods and tobacco. SWIM thinks marihuana has just as much of the right to be decriminalized/legalized as alcohol does... and it looks like we're slowly heading in the right direction for their equality.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by mouthwater

SWIM thinks SWIY is underestimating the the pressure to 'crack-down' on fatty foods and tobacco. SWIM thinks marihuana has just as much of the right to be decriminalized/legalized as alcohol does... and it looks like we're slowly heading in the right direction for their equality.

I concur. Socialized health care is the greatest enemy of the individual's choice to do drugs or not; because, under a health system where everyone's needs are met regardless of their life choices, the only economic decision is to restrict the life choices. Hence the war on alcohol, tobacco, cholesterol, trans-fats, and what-have-you.

There are only two options: I am at liberty to do what I like with my body and responsible for the consequences thereof, or I am not. Liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.

I, for one, would pefer to err on the side of liberty. And consequences be damned.


ECL

[Darksanity]

Not to mention tobacco and alcohol

[stoneinfocus]

The main obstacle in the thinking is that drugs are bad and need to be restricted by any means.

This is plain wrong, in fact, no civilized, high cultural or any society could ever exist without drugs.

The worst drugs, being already legally available, are leading to addictions and "the bad stuff" that comes with it.

If we see it this way, that all heavy addicted will become addicted, because of their genetic program, so then there´s no gateway drug... -no matter what drug, will carry them to all the other drugs, as soon as they got their first high on whatever, they´ll live for the next high only of -u name it.

IIRC the numer of addictions have always remained the same, no matter what law was applied, it was just, that in certain times, the use was more obvious and then judged by the puritans and the "conservative" mentality,
which lead to prohibition, which again failed on any scale applied to any drug and society.

But in fact, thanks to A. Huxley, the conservative is not a puritan, it´s someone, who defies what´s working, against methods, laws or anything else, that could prove to worsen the existing situation.

Legal Heroin drove the unintended deaths and HIV infections to zero in Switzerland and most heavily addicted could improve in every aspect, including finding a work; and -this goes to Police Officer- the social situation and psychological- and mental situation improved drastically and very fast.

I think, we force them into suffocation, criminaltiy and it´s not the drug, but the laws, that desensitize´ them, because they are forced to break the laws, literally, and then the human being goes the whole way down, because we made him an asocial being, that behaves like one and no one stays the same if he´s forced to act like that.Again, it´s the society, which is asocial (does ths term even exist in english/american? -it was used in germany, by fascists for gipsys, synthi, roma, homosexuals and everone that seemed to not fit in)

So where is the christianity, in not helping the weakest, if we could so, by fullfilling their needs, which we easily could do, so they could help themselves? "What you do to the least of us you do to me" as Jesus once said, whoever this might have been, it´s nonetheless one of the most human and ethic principals, applied to another instrument of power, in an religious instituion, though, but still right in the meaning of it.

I still believe that nearly everyone, who is addicted, would have been so, no matter what and all the rest could manage any drug-use... maybe not easily and not without danger, but then again, not that worse, as it ever was within prohibition, and it would lead to more self-responsibility and intelligence and less fascism as I see fascism, though not a confessing one, but nonetheless this one too, increasing, in proportion to the laws applied to take away ones own responsibility for their and any other lives.

[smogg]

education is the only way forward at the moment we seem to be going round in circles every attempt i have seen over the years to prevent peeps from taking drugs is pethetic and created by some one who has never taken drugs but i see it every were now when i first started taking drugs (20 plus years ago ) there wasnt that many people doing them but now it seems to be totaly out of controll with children as young as 12 taking them the responsability lies with the drug dealers and its time they started being more responsable they just do not care so long as they make some cash i would of thought by now that there would of been some kind of code of conduct
like dont deal to kids, but no, if certian drugs were legalised than atleast there would be some sort of controll and age limit . the pharmasist could recognise signs that the buyer has a problem and maybe send them to a counciler of some sort or drug rehab we do not do enough and i do think that anyone who becomes dependant on drugs ( myself to ) has some sort of problem with there lives or personality it can be some thing so simple as being shy or not confidant

[xctico]

LSD presents a particular problem for the government ... as anyone who's done enough LSD realizes he doesn't need a government.

[El Calico Loco]

He might need one to protect himself from others who haven't done enough LSD.


ECL

[xctico]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

He might need one to protect himself from others who haven't done enough LSD.


ECL

that can be easily resolved with a squirt gun... :P