Opinions - Drugs and Crime Go Hand in Hand

[Ranke]

To add something to this thread rather then continuing to restate the same arguments, I will provide swims personal account of his drug us and crime.
When swim was a rabid dxm user (verging on abuse at times) he was buying roughly 2500mg a week. During this time many stores in his area began restricting the sale of cough medicines, one now had to be 18+. Up until this time swim had grudgingly payed the 6 bucks per bottle of cough syrup or the 8 for zicam. However, when this restriction was put into place swim was forced to steal in order to obtain his drug of choice. Up until that time he had payed the price for his drug and never considered stealing it. Now, a few years later swim is an adult and can purchase dxm containing products as he wishes. Since he has turned 18 swim has gone back to paying for his drug.

In swims case he stole only because he was unable to purchase his drug legally. For the most part drug users wish to be normal boring citizens, but an oppressive government makes that impossible. People will always do what they wish if they believe they have the right to. You, PO, and all your ilk will never stop this, if you and others like you really wished to decrease drug related crime make drugs legal. You can argue till you are blue in the face, the fact is that the government is the root of all drug related problems. Change that or give up. Both swim and I are done with this thread. We've always hated politics anyway, give us a science and were happy. Enjoy the endless maddening circle of politics, swims going to go read about some nice reliable, logical chemicals.

P.S.
Sorry for any sloppy wording or spelling, swim just got some lovely clonazepam and is enjoying it very much.

[Psych0naut]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Dont believe me? I have statistical xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And no, it dosent make me happy to say that. I find it rather sad. I find it sad to know that there are a great deal of people who will rob, pillage, and murder to support a drug addiction.

That's because of the attitude towards drugs in your country. I also have plenty of statistics that shows more liberal laws prevent a lot of crime. That's the reason why we had very liberal laws towards drugs in my country, and miracously, it worked, a lot less crime. When drugs are illegal, you keep it in the hands of organised crime, same happened when alcohol became illegal in the US. When all drugs would become legal, organised crime would only have a fraction of the money and power they have today, by keeping drugs illegal, your keeping the business in their hands. Nobody would have to steal to get the money for their next score if they could buy their drugs at the prices they are worth, when it would be legal. If tobacco would become illegal, you can be shure people would start stealing in order to pay for their habbit, because drug dealers would start selling it, instead you can buy a pack of cigarettes anywhere you want for a reasonable price. Same goes for alcohol, the other legal drug.

[FuBai]

I did a little analysis in another thread which I subsequently deleted because I had missread the proponent's point, but I feel it is suited to this thread in discussing the similarities between tobacco and marijuana and the crime they cause:

"Very little property theft is related to Marijuana because, whilst there is the potential for some dependance, it is not chronicaly addictive or as expensive (at least in the UK) as heroin, cocaine and the other hard drugs. A good comparison is between marijuana and tobacco - both are smokeable products so we can say that they equate in terms of damage done by smoking alone (Marijuana does contain more tar, but people tend to smoke alot more cigarettes a day than they do marijuana cigarettes.)

Lets compare them on these terms:

1) addiction and health
2) Prof. Nutt's rating (explained later)
3) cost
4) Taxation gained
5) Treatment costs
6) Crime caused
7) Career

So first tobacco -

1) Contains the addictive substance niccotine, which causes both physical and mental dependance. It is reckoned to be more addictive than cocaine. For every 500,000 people who smoke in Britain 3,000 will die this year and 12,000 will be hospitalised due to smoking related conditions

2) In Proffessor Nutt's recently produced research (March 2007) on which he gave information to the House of Commons select committee on Science and Technolodgy ranked it 9th out of the 20 recreational drugs tested in terms of harm, (1 being the most, 20 being the least)

3) 20 cigarettes can be purchased for 5 pounds containing a large amount of material. It costs 5-10 pounds a day to feed a Tobacco habit.

4) Tax from tobacco in Britain provides a revenue of 9 billion pounds a year

5) The cost of treating tobacco caused illness upon the NHS is 1.5 billion a year.

6) Tobacco related property theft is at 0%

7) Being caught smoking will do no damage to your career or job prospects, and will not bar you from most jobs. Workers who smoke are up to 33% less efficient than those who don't.

Now Marijuana

1) Marijuana has been linked with the occurance of certain mental health disorders including schizophrenia, paranoia and depression. It may also cause HPPD in a very few cases. Marijuana causes some dependance in a minority of cases. Marijuana has never been demonstrated as the cause of cancer. (remembering we have already discussed smoking related problems in the intro such as emphysemia)

2) Proff. Nutt said that, taking into account the newer and more potent brands of skunk 2-3 times stronger than previous strains, marijuana was 11th on his scale, below tobacco

3) Amounts vary but 20 marijuana cigarettes costs in excess of 30 to 40 pounds. But we must take into account that marijuana is a more severly intoxicating substance so less is needed to get an effect, but the cost proportion in comparative terms is still much greater. It costs 10-20 pounds a day to feed a marijuana habit.

4) Tax from Marijuana is at 0 pounds a year. It is only the criminals that profit

5) Whilst there are few percise figures that take into account the cost of marijuana on the NHS the causation of mental disorders is certainly a burden on the NHS and one that cannot be re-couped through taxes as no taxes are levied.

6) Cannabis related property theft is pretty low. I'm skimming through police stats but they don't make for easy reading and it's hard to find the information i'm looking for precisley. Alot of it simply says 'drug related property crime' which isn't fair on marijuana as it includes heroin and cocaine etc.

7) Being caught smoking marijuana will severly affect your ability to work and get a job, and marijuana use will bar you from alot of jobs. Marijuana in the work places does severly impair efficiency.

So, whilst you have tobacco that has greater health problems and greater addiction potential you still see no property crime because of the cost of the tobacco being small and the ability to maintain a job whislt overtly using means that people can legitamately support thier habit."

[wreckreational]

arter researching LEAP a little bit (as I'd never heard of it before this) I think it is the most intelligent stance on drugs and drug policy I've ever heard from our brothers in blue. I could believe in our police again, if only this were the norm. This said I do have the upmost respect for the job that yhe police do, it is admittadly an undesirable and underpaid one. I hope one day we can all live in a world where reason and compassion dictate the rules and laws of our society. It's still OK to dream, isn't it?

[samuraigecko]

Cops are both good and bad just like society in general are both good and bad. However if "Mr Statistics" wants to talk statistics then i can most defiantly ask him this question. THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION AND I AM EXPECTING IT TO BE ANSWERED CORRECTLY.

Out of the general populace (not just prisoners or slums) but a FULL cross section of the entire populace, what is the % of drug related crime? or even crime in general per head?

Now

Out of the Police force, what is the % of corruption and crime based even on conservative statistics?

One may find that proportionately Police have a higher crime rate than the general populace does. One has researched this fairly heavily over the length of this discussion and One has found MANY scary facts. Research this yourself and see what you come up with if you are so inclined as One is NOT going to post it all here as it is easily obtainable from the net and people can make up their OWN minds. And that is the key to freedom which PO and the powers that be say that they cherish so much. The ability to make up your OWN mind. Yet they still feel the need to be big brother "make up your own mind BUT only within the boundaries that are set." , , "Think what you want to think as long as it fits in with what I (bb) thinks." , , etc etc. This contradictory belief system has caused many people DEATH for the duration of its conception.
How many people are murdered because of drug related crime per annum?
How many deaths are caused by western involved WARS per annum?
How many people are killed by police per annum?
One thinks that you may find that the latter 2 are a MUCH higher number.

THINK outside the BOX that the "powers that be" create to make a "fluffiness" of pillow feathers in your head to make you think that everything is OK.

Show the community some REAL and COMPARATIVE statistics. But then again, why bother? You are not going to post anything to incriminate yourself or the powers that be because you have been trained not to do so. Be a man instead of a sheep and see what is in front of you (which in PO's case would probably be another sheep's ass but one would hope that he steps out of the line of sheep and sees that there is more than just the shitty ass of another sheep in front of him).

Stand on your own two feet for once in your life instead of just accepting the govt. stats you are told to believe are scripture.

[Woodman]

Re: prohibition of drugs:

"NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. ...
Things being as they are, ... we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that

1.) the war on drugs has failed,
2.) that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction,
3.) that it is wasting our resources, and
4.) that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states.

We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far"

I would also add that it creates an atmosphere of opportunity for a multitude of criminal enterprises (from small street gangs in the USA, to large bands of marxist rebel guerrillas operating at the behest of S. American cartels) to finance their organizations through the drug trade.

It is a black-market enterprise.

If you decriminalize drugs, you effectively shut-down the black market; no more silly-ass street gangs, no more marxist guerrillas.

But this also means that there will be no more billions of dollars sent to S. American countries to combat the the drug trade. No more billions of dollars allocated to state and municipal law enforcement agencies who view this money as the life-blood of their existence.

If we were serious about the drug war then it would be over by now.

I still say that we should either start executing people for simple possession, or decriminalize drugs and regulate their commerce.

Either shit, or get off the fucking pot, but this silly-ass drug war is ridiculous.

You would think that after 35 years, everyone would begin to at least SUSPECT that.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by Woodman

I still say that we should either start executing people for simple possession,

Some countries do this; still they have drugs, users, and addicts.


ECL

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

Some countries do this; still they have drugs, users, and addicts.


ECL

True, but it is far less of a problem in those countries.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Woodman

True, but it is far less of a problem in those countries.

How do you define problem? I would say that China has a 'problem', if that is how we are describing drug usage and it is no small one either. They use the death sentence and it does not seem to be working as a deterrent.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

How do you define problem? I would say that China has a 'problem', if that is how we are describing drug usage and it is no small one either. They use the death sentence and it does not seem to be working as a deterrent.

I am unfamiliar with China's laws, their legislative priorities, law enforcement agencies, and overall jurisprudence as applied to drug enforcement efforts.

Perhaps you can educate us in some of these areas.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

How do you define problem? I would say that China has a 'problem', if that is how we are describing drug usage and it is no small one either. They use the death sentence and it does not seem to be working as a deterrent.

Saudi Arabia also has a growing problem with drug abuse, despite its draconian enforcement measures.

You simply can't execute enough people....

[Woodman]

For whatever it might matter, here is my (short) opinion for the record:

I do NOT think that drugs and crime go hand-in-hand any more than cops & corruption go hand-in-hand.

Re: law enforcement institutions...

I think that, initially, cops start out with the best intentions, but then they get caught-up in the policy and institutional mindset.

They don't START bad, it's just the system that makes them that way.

..but then we all know that the road to Hell is paved with "good" intentions.

[English_T]

YEs, this is totally TRUE for most persons BUT only in cases where they are addicted.
Persons who take LSD do not go around stealing to find the funds for it, likewise with other non-addictive drugs.

However, with heroin you're absolutely right. I was an addict for a while but had the finances to pay for my addiction; however, most of the other people I would meet in the course of things would daily steal £300 of clothes etc from shops which they would then sell at local pubs for £100 (at most). This is an absolute fact.

This is an excellent reason to provide support for addicts in the form of either methadone or diamorphine - the expense of these crimes is not only the initial shops loss, it cost us all by removing police from the streets to deal with the shoplifting and thus away from more serious crimes, it then clogs up courts and prisons and then there is also the expense in the form of the money tax payers then have to pay for those police officers, courts and prisons and the personell neeeded to man such.

PRoviding full support with easy access to methadone/diamprphine (which are extremely cheap and are only expensive due to there illegality which thus enforces the need for shoplifting) is crucial in counteracting this crime until such time as drug use is not as high as it is today - drug use is a pure reflection of problems in society, they go hand in hand.

[Bikelbees]

I seem to be picking up the wrong message here, you did address your remarks to police officer, allow me to reflect as there is definetely a misunderstanding here.

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I seem to be picking up the wrong message here, you did address your remarks to police officer, allow me to reflect as there is definetely a misunderstanding here.

Good God Bikelbees, he's gone and done it again! The rascal's got us thrashing the shit out of each other--obviously the wires are crossed somewhere because I know we're on the same side of the fence with at least some of this stuff.

Yes the original rant was addressed to PO, suggesting he could go after real criminals if the government ever decides to stop manufacturing the easy-to-catch ones.

FuBai, you've thought the decrim scenario out very well, though I disagree on a few minor points, we can get to it later, I need sleep...

[FuBai]

To Bikelbees: It would be against my strongest moral principles to not make the issue of drugs a financial one. Drugs should be bought, they should cost money, people should have to work so that they can afford them, they should not be handed out for free. Why should they not simply be given to users? Because that encourages user complacency, it encourages lazyness and it undermines the foundations of the legalisation argument - that being that a responsible adult can use drugs and maintain a job an serve society. Drugs such as LSD, MDMA, 2C-B, Cannabis, Ketamine, Amphetamine (sulphate, not meth) etcetera should be legal for sale in Liquor stores - all alcohol should also be moved to Liquor stores, so that all the drugs of serious intoxication that have a relativley low addiction potential are in one place. They should each be priced in the same way - production costs + profit margins + taxation (100% or more). Thus the government profits, the buisness profits and the consumer has access to a safer, regulated supply of intoxicants, all of which should come with advice as to safe usage, dosage etc.

Alot of these drugs have very low (in comparison to tobacco and alcohol) dosages, so the solution is to sell them in solution (aha) or with some sort of dilutant. For instance sell MDMA in a sugar solution, like fizzy pop (for adults), so that overdose is harder as more liquid has to be drunk. LSD tabs could be sold with exactly 50 ug a tab in packets of 5 with a purchase limit of 4 packs per person. Speed (Amphetamine Sulphate) and other drugs that are snorted, such as Ketamine, could be cut with a non-harmful agent so that more would have to be snorted and the overdose risk was lessend. Dilutants are possible with most drugs, in the same way that alcohol is diluted now. The most common alcoholic drinks are beer/larger/cider etc, all of which have low alcohol percentages, usualy not exceeding 6%, and yet they are the most commonly used. It is alot harder to get drunk from beer than it is from vodka, rum or brandy, but people still opt for beer. Why is that? I think it is because it's safer, more controlled, more relaxed and easier.

So when you talk about the 'rich being able to overdose' more readily then you are really discussing a falacy. Drugs must be sold, and not given, they should be readily available for contributors to society, and less so for those who do not contribute. The whole point is to encourage individual responsibility for ones own actions, to be a good citizen and create a work ethic where people understand that they need to work if they want to be able to afford luxuries such as drugs. There will always be those who steal to fund a habit, whether it's gambling, tobacco or alcohol, and there will always be those who sponge off society, who are nothing but users, both of drugs and the chances that society has thrown thier way, but to encourage people to earn thier own money, to work for a living and not giving them a get out easy clause of just giving them enough drugs so that they can spend thier life in an irresponible drug filled daze.

As for drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Oxycontin, Codine and all potent opiates or drugs with a serious addiction potential coupled with a strong intoxicating influence, these should be sold through pharmacies. A person who wishes to buy these drugs must send off to a government Drug Regulation Agency for a form which is basicaly a disclaimer, de-volving all responsibility for the consequences of use upon the user, and also includes an extra code of responsibilities such as 'your use of Strongly Addictive and Intoxicating Substances (SAIS) will be considered an agravating factor should you ever stand trial for: theft, robbery, burglary or any form of property theft' and 'If you are found to be incompetent at the wheel as a result of your use of SAISs or as a result of any drug use you will be liable for a greatly increased fine as well as imprisonement and the removal of your liscence'. Also included with the disclaimer form will be leaflets and pamphlets on getting help to ocvercome addiction, local group therapy meetings etcetera. Basicaly the point is not to be soft on irresponsible use, to put in place strict measures pertaining to irresponsible use but still allow responsible use and encourage addicticts to seek help. The disclaimer would be sent back to the government Drug Regulation Agency (DRA) along with a passport photo, and in return they would be sent a little ID card with thier picture on it along with a chip and pin system. This could then be taken to a pharmacist who would then allow you to purchase a SAIS if your card scanned correctly into his scanner and you entered the right pin code. The SAIS that you purchased would then be logged into a government database so that your use of SAIS could be monitored and the spread of SAIS use could be controlled. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for drug legalisation and governmental control, but I don't want to see a Methepidemic in Britain on the same scale as the Americans have it, I want to monitor those drugs which have a serious potential for abuse and I want to maintain the NEGATIVE STIGMA surrounding thier use. There is no way I ever want to see Heroin, Crack or Meth use being seen as OK, nor in any way endorsed by the government. But that use is going to occur in a far more damaging manner if we simply prohibit it, thus we have to resort to a system of monitoring, measuring and watching, whilst trying to maintain the negative perception people have towards them. I think these systems, coupled with informed and measured advertising campaings would help to control this problem.

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by FuBai

To Bikelbees: It would be against my strongest moral principles to not make the issue of drugs a financial one. Drugs should be bought, they should cost money, people should have to work so that they can afford them, they should not be handed out for free. Why should they not simply be given to users? Because that encourages user complacency, it encourages lazyness and it undermines the foundations of the legalisation argument - that being that a responsible adult can use drugs and maintain a job an serve society. Drugs such as LSD, MDMA, 2C-B, Cannabis, Ketamine, Amphetamine (sulphate, not meth) etcetera should be legal for sale in Liquor stores - all alcohol should also be moved to Liquor stores, so that all the drugs of serious intoxication that have a relativley low addiction potential are in one place. They should each be priced in the same way - production costs + profit margins + taxation (100% or more). Thus the government profits, the buisness profits and the consumer has access to a safer, regulated supply of intoxicants, all of which should come with advice as to safe usage, dosage etc.

Alot of these drugs have very low (in comparison to tobacco and alcohol) dosages, so the solution is to sell them in solution (aha) or with some sort of dilutant. For instance sell MDMA in a sugar solution, like fizzy pop (for adults), so that overdose is harder as more liquid has to be drunk. LSD tabs could be sold with exactly 50 ug a tab in packets of 5 with a purchase limit of 4 packs per person. Speed (Amphetamine Sulphate) and other drugs that are snorted, such as Ketamine, could be cut with a non-harmful agent so that more would have to be snorted and the overdose risk was lessend. Dilutants are possible with most drugs, in the same way that alcohol is diluted now. The most common alcoholic drinks are beer/larger/cider etc, all of which have low alcohol percentages, usualy not exceeding 6%, and yet they are the most commonly used. It is alot harder to get drunk from beer than it is from vodka, rum or brandy, but people still opt for beer. Why is that? I think it is because it's safer, more controlled, more relaxed and easier.

So when you talk about the 'rich being able to overdose' more readily then you are really discussing a falacy. Drugs must be sold, and not given, they should be readily available for contributors to society, and less so for those who do not contribute. The whole point is to encourage individual responsibility for ones own actions, to be a good citizen and create a work ethic where people understand that they need to work if they want to be able to afford luxuries such as drugs. There will always be those who steal to fund a habit, whether it's gambling, tobacco or alcohol, and there will always be those who sponge off society, who are nothing but users, both of drugs and the chances that society has thrown thier way, but to encourage people to earn thier own money, to work for a living and not giving them a get out easy clause of just giving them enough drugs so that they can spend thier life in an irresponible drug filled daze.

As for drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Oxycontin, Codine and all potent opiates or drugs with a serious addiction potential coupled with a strong intoxicating influence, these should be sold through pharmacies. A person who wishes to buy these drugs must send off to a government Drug Regulation Agency for a form which is basicaly a disclaimer, de-volving all responsibility for the consequences of use upon the user, and also includes an extra code of responsibilities such as 'your use of Strongly Addictive and Intoxicating Substances (SAIS) will be considered an agravating factor should you ever stand trial for: theft, robbery, burglary or any form of property theft' and 'If you are found to be incompetent at the wheel as a result of your use of SAISs or as a result of any drug use you will be liable for a greatly increased fine as well as imprisonement and the removal of your liscence'. Also included with the disclaimer form will be leaflets and pamphlets on getting help to ocvercome addiction, local group therapy meetings etcetera. Basicaly the point is not to be soft on irresponsible use, to put in place strict measures pertaining to irresponsible use but still allow responsible use and encourage addicticts to seek help. The disclaimer would be sent back to the government Drug Regulation Agency (DRA) along with a passport photo, and in return they would be sent a little ID card with thier picture on it along with a chip and pin system. This could then be taken to a pharmacist who would then allow you to purchase a SAIS if your card scanned correctly into his scanner and you entered the right pin code. The SAIS that you purchased would then be logged into a government database so that your use of SAIS could be monitored and the spread of SAIS use could be controlled. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for drug legalisation and governmental control, but I don't want to see a Methepidemic in Britain on the same scale as the Americans have it, I want to monitor those drugs which have a serious potential for abuse and I want to maintain the NEGATIVE STIGMA surrounding thier use. There is no way I ever want to see Heroin, Crack or Meth use being seen as OK, nor in any way endorsed by the government. But that use is going to occur in a far more damaging manner if we simply prohibit it, thus we have to resort to a system of monitoring, measuring and watching, whilst trying to maintain the negative perception people have towards them. I think these systems, coupled with informed and measured advertising campaings would help to control this problem.

I am uncertain as to whether posters are writing tongue in cheek, tactically or literally at this point. On the presumption it is the latter I guess as you describe it as a "strong moral principle" we would have to agree to differ. Are you sure that is the way to express this opinion? It seems to close down debate as being beyond the pale to disagree? My view is that drugs are possible to produce quite cheaply and why should people not be able to take advantage of that? You advocate a loaded market where they are made deliberately expensive through taxation. I think we must always remind ourselves of the type of system of rule that we endure before accepting what might appear to be common sense solutions. I'm saying that we certainly do not have a benign or utopian government (anywhere), and thus its not always good practice to help manage it by forwarding demands for greater state regulation posing as protection. I don't accept that the present focus on health and protection is as caring as widely touted, I believe that it is the emergence of a new politics, the politics of behaviour as the new form of control, same power system and distribution - different language. By example, in the past the state justified its imperialism in quite overt language, now it is posed in the language of human rights and peace keeping, but with the same mandate for imposing western values and control.

I accept that tactically there is an argument for appearing entirely sober and politically impotent in order to curry favour with authority. However, it does seem to me that all indirect taxation fails to address unequal wealth distribution and makes consumption potential based upon income. This is what we effectively have now, and we are all aware of how drugs and crime then become linked by acquisition crimes funding drug consumption. Its not about whether drugs should be free or not, we do have a welfare state which does provide many things for free. You may be right that this leads to laziness, although certainly not in every case - I don't accept the free-market model which suggests that we can all be successful if we pull our fingers out - its just not true, capitalism is about rich people and poor people. I also have seen enough to know that wealth is not based upon a meritocracy or hard work. It can be, but the richest are usually just the best adapted at exploiting the system through generating wealth by property income, investment, tax reduction measures etc money interests are inherently conservative (small c) and are not prone to radical reform unless there is a profit in it, why give them the profit out of our inheritance ie natural plants and the fruits of scientific endeavour which is fairly there to benefit all of us, not something which should be the sole arena of the corporate giant or the intellectual property lawyer.

I'm just not sure about all this regulation per se, its reducing subjectivity, not increasing knowledge and responsibility.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I am uncertain as to whether posters are writing tongue in cheek, tactically or literally at this point. On the presumption it is the latter I guess as you describe it as a "strong moral principle" we would have to agree to differ. Are you sure that is the way to express this opinion? It seems to close down debate as being beyond the pale to disagree? My view is that drugs are possible to produce quite cheaply and why should people not be able to take advantage of that? You advocate a loaded market where they are made deliberately expensive through taxation. I think we must always remind ourselves of the type of system of rule that we endure before accepting what might appear to be common sense solutions. I'm saying that we certainly do not have a benign or utopian government (anywhere), and thus its not always good practice to help manage it by forwarding demands for greater state regulation posing as protection. I don't accept that the present focus on health and protection is as caring as widely touted, I believe that it is the emergence of a new politics, the politics of behaviour as the new form of control, same power system and distribution - different language. By example, in the past the state justified its imperialism in quite overt language, now it is posed in the language of human rights and peace keeping, but with the same mandate for imposing western values and control.

I accept that tactically there is an argument for appearing entirely sober and politically impotent in order to curry favour with authority. However, it does seem to me that all indirect taxation fails to address unequal wealth distribution and makes consumption potential based upon income. This is what we effectively have now, and we are all aware of how drugs and crime then become linked by acquisition crimes funding drug consumption. Its not about whether drugs should be free or not, we do have a welfare state which does provide many things for free. You may be right that this leads to laziness, although certainly not in every case - I don't accept the free-market model which suggests that we can all be successful if we pull our fingers out - its just not true, capitalism is about rich people and poor people. I also have seen enough to know that wealth is not based upon a meritocracy or hard work. It can be, but the richest are usually just the best adapted at exploiting the system through generating wealth by property income, investment, tax reduction measures etc money interests are inherently conservative (small c) and are not prone to radical reform unless there is a profit in it, why give them the profit out of our inheritance ie natural plants and the fruits of scientific endeavour which is fairly there to benefit all of us, not something which should be the sole arena of the corporate giant or the intellectual property lawyer.

I'm just not sure about all this regulation per se, its reducing subjectivity, not increasing knowledge and responsibility.

My problem with having welfare and such is that it takes away my ability to choose what I do with my money. I'm the one who worked to earn it, why should I be forced to give it away (which sounds a lot like stealing to me by the way) to someone I don't even know? I know it's terrible to think of the poor guy with no home, but I don't think many of us would be happy if he broke into our homes and stole from us. If I give someone my money it's because I CHOOSE to because I see some merit in doing so.

As far as tax evasion and such, I feel that that can easily be handled by limiting the power of the government in the first place. If the government can't give these kinds of insentives and create these loopholes then the problem is solved.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I am uncertain as to whether posters are writing tongue in cheek, tactically or literally at this point. On the presumption it is the latter I guess as you describe it as a "strong moral principle" we would have to agree to differ. Are you sure that is the way to express this opinion? It seems to close down debate as being beyond the pale to disagree? My view is that drugs are possible to produce quite cheaply and why should people not be able to take advantage of that? You advocate a loaded market where they are made deliberately expensive through taxation. I think we must always remind ourselves of the type of system of rule that we endure before accepting what might appear to be common sense solutions. I'm saying that we certainly do not have a benign or utopian government (anywhere), and thus its not always good practice to help manage it by forwarding demands for greater state regulation posing as protection. I don't accept that the present focus on health and protection is as caring as widely touted, I believe that it is the emergence of a new politics, the politics of behaviour as the new form of control, same power system and distribution - different language. By example, in the past the state justified its imperialism in quite overt language, now it is posed in the language of human rights and peace keeping, but with the same mandate for imposing western values and control.

I accept that tactically there is an argument for appearing entirely sober and politically impotent in order to curry favour with authority. However, it does seem to me that all indirect taxation fails to address unequal wealth distribution and makes consumption potential based upon income. This is what we effectively have now, and we are all aware of how drugs and crime then become linked by acquisition crimes funding drug consumption. Its not about whether drugs should be free or not, we do have a welfare state which does provide many things for free. You may be right that this leads to laziness, although certainly not in every case - I don't accept the free-market model which suggests that we can all be successful if we pull our fingers out - its just not true, capitalism is about rich people and poor people. I also have seen enough to know that wealth is not based upon a meritocracy or hard work. It can be, but the richest are usually just the best adapted at exploiting the system through generating wealth by property income, investment, tax reduction measures etc money interests are inherently conservative (small c) and are not prone to radical reform unless there is a profit in it, why give them the profit out of our inheritance ie natural plants and the fruits of scientific endeavour which is fairly there to benefit all of us, not something which should be the sole arena of the corporate giant or the intellectual property lawyer.

I'm just not sure about all this regulation per se, its reducing subjectivity, not increasing knowledge and responsibility.

I never advocated a loaded market, it was you whom I believe advocated the simple gifting of drugs to people. What I claimed was that they must have value and cost, that they must be bought for a price, not that that price should be superficialy increased so that we still remain with criminals undercutting the market - that would defeat the point. As for saying that the term 'against my strongest moral principles' pre-cludes debate, that is utter rot, as you have demonstrated by continuing the debate. I said that it would be against my most firmly held principles, not that those principles, no matter how firmly held, should not be subject for debate, nor my conclusions drawn from them, to say so is, to my mind at least, a total falacy.

In terms of remaining "sober" perhaps I have derived an incorrect intention, but I should certainly hope that you are not condoning drug use, or encouraging it? I would never advise anyone to use, I would say that "I accept that you will use and, if you shall, you should at least do it as safley as possible." Legalisation of drugs should never condone drug use, it should aim to reduce the harms of drug use and to incorporate users into society. The government should, at least, be neutral to drug use.

As to your semi-socialistic tangent that there is an unequal distribution of wealth, well if you haven't seen the abject failure and economic stagnation of policies that give rather than encourange people to work for objects that they desire then there is little I can say further. People are unequal, that's how people are, they are different - he's taller, he's smarter, he's faster, he's stronger - why shouldn't wealth be an inheritable factor, at least to some extent? It may well be unfair, but the world is unfair and trying to play politics with a hat full of sky rather than taking into account political realities and being pragmatic in ones understanding of the world is another course bound for the salt-watery depths of failure. Consumption based upon income is the same as consumption based upon any other defining physical or mental characteristsic - it's not my fault he's cleverer than me, so it's unfair we don't get the same grades is the same argument as it's unfair he's richer than me, so I should get as many luxuries as he does. Just because we can more readily control the characteristic of wealth doesn't mean we should be more ready to control it. Unfairness is everywhere - I could go to sleep to night and never wake up because of some congential heart failure, that wouldn't be fair but there's nothing we can do. I wouldn't blame anyone, even if I could, it would be just one of those little unfair things that happen every second of every day. Humans are naturaly self-serving, greedy and ambitious - even if you dont accept that this is true for everyone then you will at least accept that a very significant propotion of people are like this - enough to ruin any sort of system which allocates rather than asks people to earn. It is up to us to create and maintain situations where social mobility is possible and where work is incentivised and neccesary, it is up to us not to try to create a utopia where everyone is equal, but to create fairness only where it is pragmaticaly possible. In this instance, I would say, it is not.

[Bikelbees]

What it means to be human in the cultural sense is entirely a social construct IMO. When you talk of humans being naturally self serving and greedy, this is entirely to do with the fear we are conditioned with and the culture of limits. People often do selfless acts even in this society, giving up their lives to help others. In fact if humans do have any natural quality, it is to be unified as they are sub-conciously aware of their commonality, the life force that pervades us all and our universal conciousness which is so masked by the limits we are shackled with. Humanity could be so much more than a market place of commodities and we should reject the limits that are set out. Human beings have the ability to transcend any of these lowly horizons as they do not actually have a "nature" to limit them as it evolves with culture.

The point about an advanced society is that it cares for the weaker members of society, and doesn't work on the survival of the fittest animal model, I'm not saying total fairness is readily achievable, but you seem to be saying that nature is cruel in tooth and claw and there we are, bound to follow. We are talking about social and political/economic fairness here, if you think that is the same as being born with a congenitally weak heart I'm afraid that is not my point. Its not even about hand-outs, although I don't see why the disabled, the infirmed, elderly, persons studying, holy men etc cannot be excused all this buying and selling for a living. I still cannot accept that those with capital are the most worthy; a lot of people seem to get on because of privilege, corruption, gambling, crime or just being boring / back stabbing / non-questioning types adept at climbing the greasy pole, or those who are ruthless enough to exploit others people's labour for profit. Maybe this does sound semi-socialist, but I don't accept that the politics of real change is dead just because of the failure of communism to triumph over capitalism or the shortage of alternatives on offer.

Also, when you say that you hope that I am not condoning drug use, I am perplexed now. Certainly it is the view of many on this forum that drug use is unfairly stigmatised, yet others see certain drug use as potentially a good thing. Whether it needs to be responsible drug use is a moot point, I have said before and I still believe that irresponsibility is a choice.

[El Calico Loco]

I think the notion that human beings are fundamentally selfish is the cause of many of the mistakes in economic science. Humans are obviously capable of both egoism and altruism, with different humans having different degrees of both. The proper axiom of economics should not be that man is selfish, but that "man seeks to gratify his desires with the least effort", as Henry George put it. If "the least effort" involves cooperation, then persons will cooperate. If it means monopolizing resources or controlling governments, then persons will do those things instead.

That said, I'm not a fan of state-run economies either. Switching from capitalism to socialism just changes the currency from production and trade to politics and favoritism, in my mind. The powerful still oppress the weak.; it just changes the means. I prefer geoism, but I would be happy to have a little geolibertarian nation alongside capitalist and communist ones. No system is right for every person, culture, place, and time.

As for whether to support addicts with drug-welfare...I would love to have that argument! You could probably give everyone in the country a lifetime supply of all the drugs they want for a fraction of the price of the current "war". I won't necessarily agree, but how wonderful it would be to argue about something like that instead of having to constantly argue that marijuana farmers shouldn't be locked up in cages with the most vicious predators mankind can produce.

I hope to one day live in such a place.


ECL

[Felonious Skunk]

Ah Bikelbees, now I see where you've gone with this. Certainly there are many economic and philosophical facets tied into something as complex as a "drug war." I thought (rather narrow-mindedly) that they were a bit beyond the scope of this thread, and being myself basically a back-alley lummox, my goal was just to speculate on how to first spring the drug prisoners from their cages.

And it is interesting how implementation of any major socio-economic theory over the past few hundred years almost invariably results in its own uniquely-disguised form of feudalism.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

What it means to be human in the cultural sense is entirely a social construct IMO. When you talk of humans being naturally self serving and greedy, this is entirely to do with the fear we are conditioned with and the culture of limits. People often do selfless acts even in this society, giving up their lives to help others. In fact if humans do have any natural quality, it is to be unified as they are sub-conciously aware of their commonality, the life force that pervades us all and our universal conciousness which is so masked by the limits we are shackled with. Humanity could be so much more than a market place of commodities and we should reject the limits that are set out. Human beings have the ability to transcend any of these lowly horizons as they do not actually have a "nature" to limit them as it evolves with culture.

I'm with Freud on this one - the concept of Jung's collective subconcious is ridiculous in any litteral sense. Any real conception of a collective subconscious involves specific social conditioning and the predication of actions by the particular shared events - it is in no way universal and humans are essentialy divided by it rather than unified by a sense of cominality, in fact the reverse is often true - racisim is an obvious example, but we naturally identify different characteristics and assign values pertaining to that difference; this is the source of play ground bullying and name calling. If anything men come together and are unified against an accepted sense of difference - whites against black, talls against shorts, Southerners against Northerners - the examples are endless.

[English_T]

Historically, prohibition has never worked. In the UK we had experience with GIN as a problem in the 1800's with all sorts of tainted products produced and sold in the streets of London. Americas famous prohibition of the 1930's (?) failed massively and only suceeded in, as today with drugs, providing billions in cashflow for organised crime. One important point, the most aggressive supporters of the 'War on Drugs' are the producers themselves as its very illegality keeps the price artificially inflated and means more cash for the criminals. The war on drugs is responsible for the very creation of criminals and their continuing life in the world of crime. Criminals would not sell drugs if their wasn't serious money involved.

In the UK, we have seriously high taxes on cigarettes which has resulted in criminal gangs smuggling multimillions of cigarettes into the UK each week. Again, a source of money for the criminals. In the UK cigarettes are almost £5 per pack of 20 ($10 a pack of 20!) in Europe thay can be bought for £2 or less.

As an aside....Is it true that in American jails prisoners are regularly raped/abused/beaten by fellow inmates??

[Bikelbees]

In response to Broshius - Quote "My problem with having welfare and such is that it takes away my ability to choose what I do with my money. I'm the one who worked to earn it, why should I be forced to give it away (which sounds a lot like stealing to me by the way) to someone I don't even know? I know it's terrible to think of the poor guy with no home, but I don't think many of us would be happy if he broke into our homes and stole from us. If I give someone my money it's because I CHOOSE to because I see some merit in doing so.

As far as tax evasion and such, I feel that that can easily be handled by limiting the power of the government in the first place. If the government can't give these kinds of insentives and create these loopholes then the problem is solved."

I think I see where you are coming from; don't you think that able-bodied persons have some duty to provide for less capable members of society? The young go out and catch the meat and hopefully feed those who cannot run anymore, or do they just say man is essentially selfish and eat the lot themselves unless they feel generous? I don't think is discussion on tax is going anywhere really, I mentioned it as so many try to avoid paying it, and understandably so, but to simply remove welfarism would actually destabalise the state - although welfarism was originally won (as a compromise resulting from collective revolutionary struggle), nowadays its given, its given to maintain order. Unless society develops an ability (which we already have) to efficiently produce an excess of goods (and that seems v unlikely with the appropriating of green politics as an excuse to tax more and give people less) and then distribute them altruistically, then removing welfare will cause a return to slavery and an increase in crime. A society of small free market operations emanating from an anarchist agenda would in my mind be far too inefficient to produce goods.

And ECL Quote:

"I think the notion that human beings are fundamentally selfish is the cause of many of the mistakes in economic science. Humans are obviously capable of both egoism and altruism, with different humans having different degrees of both. The proper axiom of economics should not be that man is selfish, but that "man seeks to gratify his desires with the least effort", as Henry George put it. If "the least effort" involves cooperation, then persons will cooperate. If it means monopolizing resources or controlling governments, then persons will do those things instead."

I'm not sure if I agree with the notion that humans are essentially lazy either, I think that comment is a true reflection on some human behaviour in this system. If people were inspired, they would maximise their efforts as they do now for specific purposes.

Quote

"As for whether to support addicts with drug-welfare...I would love to have that argument! You could probably give everyone in the country a lifetime supply of all the drugs they want for a fraction of the price of the current "war". I won't necessarily agree, but how wonderful it would be to argue about something like that instead of having to constantly argue that marijuana farmers shouldn't be locked up in cages with the most vicious predators mankind can produce.

I hope to one day live in such a place."

True certainly on economics; I think I would comment further on a different thread focusing on whether drugs are truly progressive, detrimental or neutral to the individual and society. Certainly many active so-called communist groups are more vehemently opposed to drugs than capitalist society, despite their libertarian credentials.

FuBai: "quote : I'm with Freud on this one - the concept of Jung's collective subconcious is ridiculous in any litteral sense. Any real conception of a collective subconscious involves specific social conditioning and the predication of actions by the particular shared events - it is in no way universal and humans are essentialy divided by it rather than unified by a sense of cominality, in fact the reverse is often true - racisim is an obvious example, but we naturally identify different characteristics and assign values pertaining to that difference; this is the source of play ground bullying and name calling. If anything men come together and are unified against an accepted sense of difference - whites against black, talls against shorts, Southerners against Northerners - the examples are endless."

I totally disagree with this analysis. I'm not aware of the tall-short battle you describe except possibly Pygmies v some other tribe or Clowns v Dwarfs at the circus. Playground examples count for nothing, children are not human in a political sense, they are merely humans in the making - the suggestion that their actions are somehow closer to the essential nature of man is wrong. Man is made and so is racism and the feuds you talk of are the feuds of a primitive culture needing to grow up, not the essential nature of man, but poor politics.

I think most people with experience of entheogens such as ayahuasca, cacti, iboga to name but 3 key "drugs" have some insight into what I am talking about with a unified spirit, in fact almost all religions recognise this, do you not appreciate what is meant by ONE as in the Lord thy God? It doesn't matter if you accept this or not, the point is that these are widely held views and are more positive than the notion that we are merely discrete beings, I think this needs to be a new thread really.