war on drugs
- Thread starter funnymouth
- Start date
Einion
New member
One word: legalisation.
Not a popular idea among many people but has a number of indisputable advantages if you look at it objectively (which, frankly, many people cannot).
Bingo:
cut organised crime off at the knees;
de-criminalise addicts, solving one of the major problems of the issue.
And let\'s be honest here, the cutoff between what\'s legal and illegal is pretty arbitrary - alcohol is responsible for a great deal more misery, pain and suffering than marijuana. The reason Mary Jane first became illegal was economics, had nothing to do with a moral stance on it being bad! It was demonised later because it was illegal, not due to its inherent effects - historically these have been consistently exaggerated by governments and police, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the effects of alcohol and tobacco because of their vested interest ($$$$$).
And for the record, no, I\'m not a toker
Einion
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
decriminalize crack or meth and you have a bunch of de-criminalized addits that still have to steal to get money for their next fix. And they will do anything for it. Steal from their families, sell everything they own, then they get despirate.
I\'ve never seen a stoner jack a car or point a gun at some clerks head, but there are lots meaner users out there than pot heads.
We have shootings every night over who gets to sell crack on what corner. Gangs are big business - it is all about turf.
I\'ve never seen a stoner jack a car or point a gun at some clerks head, but there are lots meaner users out there than pot heads.
We have shootings every night over who gets to sell crack on what corner. Gangs are big business - it is all about turf.
Not really, they figured that doing the same thing with Alcohol would cut the Mafia off at the feet as well, but it just left large organizations with lots of capitol, manpower, and the knowledge of how to beat the law free to broaden their horizons.
You legalize it, fine, there will still be addicts that can\'t pay for the hit. They need money, so they steal, and fence it. For this they need fences to sell the stolen merchandise for them, back door loan sharks to give higher than legal interest rate loans, a strong arm to make sure that people pay up on their loans, ect. It just keeps on going, it doesn\'t stop the criminal element of it, it just keeps on going with it\'s normal business.
Not to mention that, in order to legalize many drugs, they\'d need to cut it down considerably in order to make it less potent and deadly, which means that the criminal elements would still be in the business of selling more potent than legal drugs.
I understand where you\'re coming from with Marijuana, but there\'s other sides to it. It\'s almost impossible to market Marijuana if it\'s legalized because it\'s a weed. It\'s not like Tobacco, which can only be grown in certain climates, it\'s a weed, and can literally grow anywhere (even underwater). Anyone can grow it in their backyard, attic, living room, ect which is only proven by the number and wide spread of those being arrested for it in it\'s current illegal state.
It\'s not anywhere near the worst drugs that we\'re talking about here either. The worst of which is actually almost always homegrown; Methamphetamines, which is instantly addicting. However, the most corrupting has proven to be Cocain, not because of it\'s effects, but because it forms the basis of so many criminal organizations and cartels.
And for the record, no, I\'m not a toker
Einion
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
If you\'d legalize all drugs and sell them in stores they will not be expensive which means few will have to steal to get a fix. Problem solved!
or?
EDIT: Sorry for my kind of lighthearted response. There are severe tragedies to this no doubt but I have started reading more on the subject and I am starting to question whether the resources spent on fighting drug related crime aren\'t better spent on clinics and dealing with the fundamental problems in society.
or?
EDIT: Sorry for my kind of lighthearted response. There are severe tragedies to this no doubt but I have started reading more on the subject and I am starting to question whether the resources spent on fighting drug related crime aren\'t better spent on clinics and dealing with the fundamental problems in society.
Einion
New member
That\'s \"I don\'t want to legalise it, regardless\" myth no. 1, sorry.
It\'s not just as simple as Bang, legalised! and then walking away from the problem. Cost is intended to go down because it\'s not illegal.
Few people in favour of this suggest that all drugs should be legalised, but with the majority of less-damaging drugs (which strangely, could include heroin) having them legal and in the realm of government oversight has far more positives than negatives.
Here\'s something that\'s not always obvious: if legal alternatives exist a lot of addicts might not feel the need to try something harder/worse (like meth) that may still be illegal, helping to control issues beyond the scope of the drugs brought into the fold.
Not once their primary money-spinner has been taken out of their hands dey ain\'t. You\'ve never seen someone so scared as a drug dealer who hears the word legalisation lol
Different era; the same kind of thing doesn\'t apply any more.
The experience in Europe of doing this - on a limited basis or more widely - has been fairly positive, so this is no longer just a theoretical exercise. Any more than the question of right-to-carry permits and their effect on crime rates is now.
The criminal element should no longer be involved in any way in the production, processing or sale of the drugs - well, any more than they are in the brewing industry or other legit enterprises - that\'s one of the primary goals of decriminalisation.
...
Pornography and prostitution are both examples of similar arenas that are worth looking into for comparison, for anyone interested.
Einion
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Sorry, disagree. At best we\'ve created a new breed of alley dwelling bums and pandhandlers. If you cannot hold a job and you need a fix - what \"Oh, now that meth comes in govment boxes, I can afford it...\" with what?
That is why meth heads switch to beer when they cannot get meth?
Yea, and those guys are all going to go get \"real\" jobs and pay taxes? With what skill set?
Legacy Account
Active member
I think you\'re making an assumption that smack and crack would be available over the counter at a pharmacy.
I see that route as being one where addicts are PRESCRIBED their drugs by a doctor on a well controlled programme of rehabilitation. We already give smackheads methadone. Why?? Just give them heroin and make damn sure that they have to go to see their doc to get it.
Free heroin courtesy of Her Majesty or sticking the proceeds from crime into the grubby mitts of a smack dealer? I know which I\'d rather see.
There\'s also the matter of demonising addicts. These people are often victims as much as the people who suffer from the crimes they commit to pay for their gear. What do you propose - leaving them stew until they\'re found dead with a needle in their arm??! Very humane.
I see that route as being one where addicts are PRESCRIBED their drugs by a doctor on a well controlled programme of rehabilitation. We already give smackheads methadone. Why?? Just give them heroin and make damn sure that they have to go to see their doc to get it.
Free heroin courtesy of Her Majesty or sticking the proceeds from crime into the grubby mitts of a smack dealer? I know which I\'d rather see.
There\'s also the matter of demonising addicts. These people are often victims as much as the people who suffer from the crimes they commit to pay for their gear. What do you propose - leaving them stew until they\'re found dead with a needle in their arm??! Very humane.
I honestly stop caring about them being the victims when they start breaking into my house, or become ready to kill if necessary to get their hit. Being a victim doesn\'t make you any less responsible for your actions, easier to understand, maybe, but no less accountable.
The idea of the drugs being prescribed doesn\'t remove the criminal element at all. It keeps them in exactly the same position they are in now, only it goes from being an illegal drug to a controlled substance. Any more than having marijuana being prescribed for certain diseases has led to less people making it on their own.
Nor does it remove the base criminal element that begins at the production stage with cartels and mafia who control a vast web of criminal elements that cater to their main product.
However, it\'s absolutely right to say that the current situation is in a different era, because when compairing the Mafia and the Cartels, the cartels are worse. Even the top mafioso couldn\'t brag to have a country under his boot, or a well armed military element.
Einion
New member
Eh? It would be intended to go down - free possibly (with conditions, just like with methadone) - as part of the means to help addicts and remove the need for them to support a $$$ habit.
The people who will become drug addicts are generally the people who will become drug addicts. That hasn\'t changed. Like some people in AA say, \"I was an alcoholic before I took my first drink.\"
It\'s not as simple as that, just like with maintenance of heroin addicts on methadone. You don\'t just wake up one day and say to yourself that you\'ll become a methadone addict.
The programmes in Holland give a decent indicator that this sort of thing is doable in practice, not just in theory, with the mean age of addicts going up.
Did I make that claim?
Separate issue. When they lagalised porn they didn\'t worry too much about what organised crime would do to replace that portion of their income
Yep. If not on a programme of rehab per se, at least given support and encouragement to get clean while simultaneously being, or becoming, productive members of society.
Exactly. All too easy to overlook that in our zeal to punish.
How do you reckon that?
Einion
Legacy Account
Active member
These are often people who have fallen foul at vulnerable times in their lives through a lapse in judgement or quite often, through not fully realising the consequences of their actions.
Addicts themselves are not really the problem. It\'s the scumbags that make millions who need their balls clipping.
Also, if someone gets their drugs for free, how is that going to make them more likely to turn to crime??!
Funny, as I mentioned one example of how it hasn\'t worked just below that clipped quote.
If you want another; Vicodin. A pain killer, prescription strength and valued as a simple drug to get you high. However, as a prescription, not everyone has access to it, or can get access to it, which means that there\'s criminal elements of society that have gone so far as to break into smaller or less secure clinics and wipe out their entire stocks of painkillers, including this drug. Including at least a couple of takes from hospitals.
If you want another; Ecstasy (MDMA). Once a prescription psychedelic drug used to treat certain psychoses, it quickly became marketable as a party drug (guess how many of the users had prescriptions?), which escalated until it was declared illegal in the US. The criminal element of it existed before the illegalization, both in garnering and supplying the drug to those who would use it, as well as the illegal activities of those club owners who allowed or supported the use.
If you make it legal, that doesn\'t change the fact that no responsible person would allow an uncut, unaltered, highly addicting (addiction rates of some illegal drugs reaching to multiple times that of any legal one) substance into the market, just for the purpose of removing crime would end up not doing so. There would be massive restrictions and changes layed down upon the drugs, and the criminal organizations would keep chugging along, selling the chance at an unrestricted pure substance.
Offer it to them for free. Well, who\'s going to pay for it? Do you want to be paying for someone to resume, or pick up a drug habit? Where\'s it going to come from? Because I can pretty well guarantee that the nearest sources of cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin are usually from criminal organizations themselves.
Offer it to them for free. Well, who\'s going to pay for it? Do you want to be paying for someone to resume, or pick up a drug habit? Where\'s it going to come from? Because I can pretty well guarantee that the nearest sources of cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin are usually from criminal organizations themselves.
Secondly, addiction isn\'t a one way street with a lot of these drugs. The vast majority of these newer designer drugs and the older drugs (cocain, crack, heroin) turn off neural receptors in the brain linked to the body\'s natural opiates. IE, they begin to lose the ability to feel pleasure from the same chemicals (sometimes at all, as is the case of Meth). Which means the search for some new, ususaly more powerful way to get the high.
Now, just how powerful a drug is any government going to really be giving these drug addicted victims? Because I can give a good bet that it wont be that strong. The reason detox from a drug works at all is because there is some will to get off the drug, offering the drug for free (which will be a lesser version of it) wont create a sudden inrush of people looking to detox. It will just be a different way of treating it. You might see a mediocre increase in the numbers willing to take the government option, but you wont get them all. There are some who have been using for so long, that they\'d be tough sells to remove them from the criminal side of drugs. Not because they\'re tied in with being a criminal, but because the criminals will always have the more powerful highs.
Einion
New member
I don\'t see much in the way of criminal involvement in the methadone programme - easy to hone in on examples that suit an a priori position isn\'t it?
Cigarettes and alcohol are stolen on a regular basis, both on a small scale and in large raids. So your point was?
It\'s not germane to the issue of whether drugs can or should be legalised, for the purposes of control and as an aid to the addicts.
You mean like tobacco? lol
Cheap point aside, this statement (which is your opinion, not a statement of fact) is just plain wrong. There are responsible people out there who allow a highly addicting substance \'on the market\'. One of them is called methadone.
Way to sidestep the question.
This argument is plausible as far as it goes but it ignores or sidesteps something important.
We\'re already paying for the consequences of people\'s abuse of alcohol and use of tobacco and have been since before I was born. \'Drugs\' - i.e. other drugs - are not significantly different; I refer you to my point above about the cutoff between what\'s legal and illegal largely being arbitrary.
...
Let\'s break this down to a fundamental. There\'s this war on drugs. It\'s cost us, collectively, billions. How\'s that worked out for us...?
The problem is not being tackled effectively the way we\'ve been doing it for about a century; time to try something new.
Einion
You actually provide me with another, just below:
It was germane to if legalization would remove the criminal element, which is what the discussion on here about legalization came from.
Except that tobacco is, it\'s filtered, both in pipe and cigarette forms. If someone doesn\'t use the filters or buys filter-less then it\'s a separate issue.
You know, you keep going back to that one drug; Methadone. However, I can guarantee you that it would be fairly easy to find and procure it through illegal means. How? Because Methadone is stolen just like Vicodine and even Robitussin these days. There\'s plenty of evidence out there that legalization doesn\'t stop the illegal activities that are attached to it. Which is what I was arguing, not whether it should be legalized or not.
Way to sidestep my answer
