Log in

View Full Version : War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue



Ice
06-03-2011, 11:55
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/02/drug.commission.report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


(CNN) -- The global war on drugs has failed, a high-level commission comprised of former presidents, public intellectuals and other leaders studying drug policies concluded in a report released Thursday.

International efforts to crack down on drug producers and consumers and to try to reduce demand have had "devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world," the report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy said.

The commission, which includes former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Virgin Group founder Richard Branson and Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa, challenges the conventional wisdom about drug markets and drug use.
Among the group's recommendations:

-- End of criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but do not harm others

-- Encourage governments to experiment with drug legalization, especially marijuana

-- Offer more harm reduction measures, such as access to syringes

-- Ditch "just say no" and "zero tolerance" policies for youth in favor of other educational efforts.

The theory that increasing law enforcement action would lead to a shrinking drug market has not worked, the report says. To the contrary, illegal drug markets and the organized criminal organizations that traffic them have grown, the group found.

The report comes as countries such as Mexico suffer from widespread drug-related violence. More than 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the past four years as rival cartels battle each other over lucrative smuggling corridors and as the army fights the cartels.

The commission's findings add more high-profile voices to a growing movement calling for a radical approach to drugs. Other leaders, such as former Mexican President Vicente Fox, have called for drug legalization as part of a solution to his country's woes.


Unfortunately (not in the article), the white house has already denounced the report ( burying your head in the sand is always fun), and asked for an increase in funds to fight these evil drugs!

Fragony
06-03-2011, 13:11
Think there is no drug related crime here it's vicious, floating limbs and torso's are as Dutch as windmills. The old hippie who grows a few plants for personal use, well it doesn't go like that they are hardened criminals.

Ice
06-03-2011, 13:26
Think there is no drug related crime here it's vicious, floating limbs and torso's are as Dutch as windmills. The old hippie who grows a few plants for personal use, well it doesn't go like that they are hardened criminals.

What? I didn't mention the Netherlands.

Cute Wolf
06-03-2011, 13:42
yep, I also support de-criminalizations of drugs, as long as the users didn't harm the others.

why a lot of countries doesn't learn from the utter failure of Prohibitionism? Making something Illegal only serve to drive them underground

Fragony
06-03-2011, 13:43
What? I didn't mention the Netherlands.

No, but here it's freely available and users aren't criminals to the law, it doesn't solve anything, just less people in jail. War on drugs is a war on people who you can't outbudget there is no solution, can gloat about how your (well your and Mexico's guv) efforts are a faillure but what would you suggest instead. Drugs isn't all that harmful why not count yourself lucky that it's pretty harmless as currency. Women, weapons and illegal immigrants are also lucrative, just less, best to keep it like that, a little bit of bad for the greater good. Take the draught, what changed when it was lifted, certainly not the maffia for the better

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 16:55
I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't what we have now. Coca grow faster than bullets. The weapons industry has made an absolute killing from both sides.

Fragony
06-03-2011, 17:18
I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't what we have now. Coca grow faster than bullets. The weapons industry has made an absolute killing from both sides.

Not changing anything remains the best idea, it's better when drugs are a hidden currency for a hidden market. You really don't want to devaluate it it will be a nightmare

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 17:22
See I'm not convinced of that. A heroine addict is always going to be a heroine addict, as long as they don't get treatment they are more likely to do desperate and stupid things for their fix.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2011, 17:23
Dealers should be prosecuted, and efforts should be made to strangle supply, that will drive up prices not just for users, but for dealers as well. The real problem though is that we can't easily attack the growers, so as prices rise on the street in the West so do their profits.

Still, these substances are life-destroying and legitimising and de-stigmatising them is not an answer.

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 17:25
We've been doing exactly that for 30 years, and the problem is worse now.

I don't think we should de-stigmatize drugs, nor should they be widely available... people are afraid of drugs, which inevitably intrigues some of them to use. A Healthy respect would be a better solution.

Ronin
06-03-2011, 17:36
Still, these substances are life-destroying and legitimising and de-stigmatising them is not an answer.

so are a lot of things that are perfectly legal do buy.

Fragony
06-03-2011, 17:49
See I'm not convinced of that. A heroine addict is always going to be a heroine addict, as long as they don't get treatment they are more likely to do desperate and stupid things for their fix.

User is just at the end of it, use it myself, use weed and sometimes cocaine in weekends. Not the point, you can't just kill the war on drugs it has a mind of it's own

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 18:01
User is just at the end of it, use it myself, use weed and sometimes cocaine in weekends. Not the point, you can't just kill the war on drugs it has a mind of it's own

Users are the end target, and the source for generating the wealth Drug Lords use to "fight" the War on Drugs. Just looking at the Mexican Cartels, they're arguably more powerful than Mexico's own military, and some, such as Los Zetas are trained on par with special forces. Taking away even just Marijuana from them would severely cripple their ability to generate the massive amounts of capitol they make.

Fragony
06-03-2011, 18:23
Users are the end target, and the source for generating the wealth Drug Lords use to "fight" the War on Drugs. Just looking at the Mexican Cartels, they're arguably more powerful than Mexico's own military, and some, such as Los Zetas are trained on par with special forces. Taking away even just Marijuana from them would severely cripple their ability to generate the massive amounts of capitol they make.

My point, things would get much worse. Never wake what's dorment, legalising drugs, just think of who you are messing with

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 18:36
There's a chance it could get ugly, but it hasn't been that good to begin with... Cuidad Juarez/Fort Bliss are already battlefields in all but name.

B-Wing
06-03-2011, 18:57
Taking away even just Marijuana from them would severely cripple their ability to generate the massive amounts of capitol they make.

And how does one do that? I mean, it's grown in Mexico, right?

Fisherking
06-03-2011, 19:21
You know, the war on drugs was lost during the Papa Bush administration.

I am not sure it was ever a fight they wanted to win.

Most police agencies like it though because it gives them added powers, military gadgets, and federal money.

Ending it would be a boon to everyone but the drug lords who might have to lower their prices.

The money could be better spent elsewhere but some how government always manages to find bigger and better ways to waist money.

Fragony
06-03-2011, 19:50
You know, the war on drugs was lost during the Papa Bush administration.

I am not sure it was ever a fight they wanted to win.

Most police agencies like it though because it gives them added powers, military gadgets, and federal money.

Ending it would be a boon to everyone but the drug lords who might have to lower their prices.

The money could be better spent elsewhere but some how government always manages to find bigger and better ways to waist money.

How? So easy we should just do that. But you can't it's not possible

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 19:52
Grow it in the USA? It grows exceptionally well here.

Fisherking
06-03-2011, 20:06
How? So easy we should just do that. But you can't it's not possible

Well, I wouldn’t worry much about it ending just yet.

Only god knows how much the US pays everyone to peruse this farce.

The whole issue is a comic tragedy of epic proportions.

It started with a scam and it is still going. The timber industry wanted to end competition with hemp farmers, just like prohibition was about ending alcohol competing with the oil industry.

It didn’t end society when it was legal.

I don’t favor drug use but I don’t like being sold a bill of goods either.

Centurion1
06-03-2011, 20:27
drugs should not be destigmatized. They are not good for you and should never be encouraged...... also not all drugs should be legalized. Do you really want legal meth and crack heads running around.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2011, 21:39
We've been doing exactly that for 30 years, and the problem is worse now.

I don't think we should de-stigmatize drugs, nor should they be widely available... people are afraid of drugs, which inevitably intrigues some of them to use. A Healthy respect would be a better solution.

Are you sure it's worse, or rather worse than it would be with legal drugs?

As far as I can see the stigma has already gone, and that's why we see rising use - so the solution is to re-stigmatise it; as well as cutting the supply chain.

The problem is with the term "war", we have a constant "war" on murder and a "war" of burglery, I'm sure if you checked the stats you'd find more burgleries today as well, but I don't see anyone saying we should stop enforcing those laws. There is not, so far as I can see, a problem with the current situation except in the minds of the general public.

Fisherking
06-03-2011, 21:44
drugs should not be destigmatized. They are not good for you and should never be encouraged...... also not all drugs should be legalized. Do you really want legal meth and crack heads running around.

Don’t worry. No one is going to legalize drugs.

If they were legal most wouldn’t be worth the money it costs to produce them. They would also lose a lot of their appeal.

Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 21:55
Are you sure it's worse, or rather worse than it would be with legal drugs?

As far as I can see the stigma has already gone, and that's why we see rising use - so the solution is to re-stigmatise it; as well as cutting the supply chain.

The problem is with the term "war", we have a constant "war" on murder and a "war" of burglery, I'm sure if you checked the stats you'd find more burgleries today as well, but I don't see anyone saying we should stop enforcing those laws. There is not, so far as I can see, a problem with the current situation except in the minds of the general public.

I don't think it's gone at all... instead of telling people drugs are bad like in the DARE program, they get to see the ugly truth. The Anti Meth Campaign in Montana was the most successful Anti Drug Program in History. Usage went down ten fold in three years, and Meth growers and Dealers were all but forced to abandon their operations, not because they were afraid of getting caught, nobody was buying.

So are you arguing that Alcohol should have stayed prohibited? There aren't many seniors around anymore to tell us what it was like during prohibition, but mafia movies are still popular.

Tellos Athenaios
06-03-2011, 22:04
Are you sure it's worse, or rather worse than it would be with legal drugs?
Take it with a grain of salt, but the most liberal and accomodating regimes have so far paid off with the best figures in terms of the ill effects related to drugs (ab)use. That ranges from addiction, to health (of the addicts) to quality of the substance to crime figures in general (it helps there is less to catalog as crime and the addiction figures lend themselves to a reduction in crime automatically).

The main thing to consider is that we already have most of the frameworks and infrastructure in place to deal with the drugs issue on a much more constructive level, we've had a 150 years or so to sort out the alcohol issue and that was actually a much worse problem in every respect than what we have with drugs now. Crime directly related to alcohol (illegally brewing, smuggling and/or usual gang house keeping involved with all crime) is pretty much gone in the West by the simple fact that once it was all properly legalised dodgy drinks no longer paid off.

Ice
06-03-2011, 23:49
No, but here it's freely available and users aren't criminals to the law, it doesn't solve anything, just less people in jail. War on drugs is a war on people who you can't outbudget there is no solution, can gloat about how your (well your and Mexico's guv) efforts are a faillure but what would you suggest instead. Drugs isn't all that harmful why not count yourself lucky that it's pretty harmless as currency. Women, weapons and illegal immigrants are also lucrative, just less, best to keep it like that, a little bit of bad for the greater good. Take the draught, what changed when it was lifted, certainly not the maffia for the better

I'm amazed you would rather lock people in jail often ruining their lives and breaking up families rather than let them indulge in a habit that hurts no one besides themselves. Legalizing drugs would often have the added benefit of allowing the government easier access to tracking them and offering the treatment they need to get clean.


Dealers should be prosecuted, and efforts should be made to strangle supply, that will drive up prices not just for users, but for dealers as well. The real problem though is that we can't easily attack the growers, so as prices rise on the street in the West so do their profits.

Still, these substances are life-destroying and legitimising and de-stigmatising them is not an answer.

First, you are lumping all drugs together and categorizing them as "life destroying" this is 100% not true what so ever. The only reason they are life destroying is that the state destroys lives enforcing this stupid drug war. Second, for the ones like meth and heroin that actually can do a person great physical harm, I'd much rather have them de-stigmatize so, like a said before, these people would more inclined to seek help from the state.



Not changing anything remains the best idea, it's better when drugs are a hidden currency for a hidden market. You really don't want to devaluate it it will be a nightmare


You are being quite the hypocrite aren't you? You admit to using illegal drugs, but would rather keep them illegal because it really doesn't effect you. I have news for you, it is the war on drugs is already causing a nightmarish scenario.



drugs should not be destigmatized. They are not good for you and should never be encouraged...... also not all drugs should be legalized. Do you really want legal meth and crack heads running around


Once again, please for the love of god, stop lumping all drugs together. Drugs like cannabis, LSD, mushrooms, escstasy, khat, and other soft drugs have been shown to be relatively harmless in moderation and much less dangerous than alcohol.

And yes, I'd rather have legal crackheads and methheads running around than illegal ones. You seem to live in a fantasy world where obtaining these hard drugs is impossible simply because they are illegal; this is simply not true.


Are you sure it's worse, or rather worse than it would be with legal drugs?

As far as I can see the stigma has already gone, and that's why we see rising use - so the solution is to re-stigmatise it; as well as cutting the supply chain.

The problem is with the term "war", we have a constant "war" on murder and a "war" of burglery, I'm sure if you checked the stats you'd find more burgleries today as well, but I don't see anyone saying we should stop enforcing those laws. There is not, so far as I can see, a problem with the current situation except in the minds of the general public.

Yes I am sure. Portugual legalized small amount of heroin in 2001 and over a decade heroin use has dropped by half.

Please don't compare murder and burgerly to the war on drugs. The former is blatant violation on anther's natural rights while the latter is the individual's business. I don't think anyone is suggesting not punishing drug users if they commit crimes.

Ice
06-03-2011, 23:51
By the way, here's the actual report:

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

If you are truly interested in what's best, I'd recommend you give it a read. It counters many of the arguments made in threads, provides years of research and statistics by many well-respected people, and debunks a lot of myths that are pure garbage.

Fragony
06-04-2011, 01:30
Not being hypocritical. Legalisation is just not to be prefered it would be messing with the way of things it's best to uphold that price tag by fighting it only a little bit, it's basicly regulation. Stopping criminalising users is easy just do it, cops won't bother me over a bit of cocaine which is nice, but legalising it is like the world dropping the dollar, a very big mess, it's the currency of the shadow economy and it's in our interest to keep it lucrative so just look the other way here and there

Tuuvi
06-04-2011, 04:59
Grow it in the USA? It grows exceptionally well here.

Interestingly enough the Mexican cartels already grow marijuana in the US.

Ice
06-04-2011, 05:52
Not being hypocritical. Legalisation is just not to be prefered it would be messing with the way of things it's best to uphold that price tag by fighting it only a little bit, it's basicly regulation. Stopping criminalising users is easy just do it, cops won't bother me over a bit of cocaine which is nice, but legalising it is like the world dropping the dollar, a very big mess, it's the currency of the shadow economy and it's in our interest to keep it lucrative so just look the other way here and there

What are you describing is legalization of small amounts of drugs for personal use; this is a good first step. However, the purity of certain street drugs, which in many cases lead to the unforunate overdose of many individuals as they are cut with dangerous substances, and the massive profits flowing to organized crime still worry me. I'd rather people know what they are using and the money go to the state to fund drug treatment programs.

Samurai Waki
06-04-2011, 05:56
Interestingly enough the Mexican cartels already grow marijuana in the US.

Yeah... I knew that for some reason. Now I know why everyone is always so happy after walking through our state parks.

Crazed Rabbit
06-04-2011, 07:25
Dealers should be prosecuted, and efforts should be made to strangle supply, that will drive up prices not just for users, but for dealers as well. The real problem though is that we can't easily attack the growers, so as prices rise on the street in the West so do their profits.

Still, these substances are life-destroying and legitimising and de-stigmatising them is not an answer.

And continuing the polices of the past decades that have lead to such a catastrophic failure is the answer?


drugs should not be destigmatized. They are not good for you and should never be encouraged...... also not all drugs should be legalized. Do you really want legal meth and crack heads running around.

Do you drink? For a fun exercise, try replacing all references to drugs with 'alcohol'.


Are you sure it's worse, or rather worse than it would be with legal drugs?

As far as I can see the stigma has already gone, and that's why we see rising use - so the solution is to re-stigmatise it; as well as cutting the supply chain.

The problem is with the term "war", we have a constant "war" on murder and a "war" of burglery, I'm sure if you checked the stats you'd find more burgleries today as well, but I don't see anyone saying we should stop enforcing those laws. There is not, so far as I can see, a problem with the current situation except in the minds of the general public.

A couple points - unlike murder and robberies, no one is hurt by the act of someone getting high.

And cutting the supply chain? That's no solution - it is not impractical, it's impossible. The mightiest superpower in the history of the world has tried to do so for decades and has always failed. Always.

Legal drugs are much better for society - just like legal alcohol. See also Portugal's experience after legalizing drugs.

Testimony by cops against the drug war:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKX9g76ehtk&feature=player_embedded

CR

HopAlongBunny
06-04-2011, 10:19
A good start to the "War on Terror" would have been to end the "War on Drugs"

rory_20_uk
06-05-2011, 18:00
Another good article:

We should end our disastrous war on drugs

By Martin Wolf

Published: June 3 2011 22:39 | Last updated: June 3 2011 22:39

The global war on drugs has failed. Readers should not take my word for this. It is the opening sentence of a report on the failures of prohibition from an independent Global Commission on Drug Policy. What makes this report astonishing is not its content, now widely accepted among disinterested people, but who is associated with it.

Among signatories are George Shultz, former US secretary of state, Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico and Javier Solana, former European Union high representative for foreign and security policy. Salute them all. They are honourable people prepared to state that the policy on which the world has engaged for decades, at the behest of the US, is a disaster.

While failing to reduce the ills of drug use at which it is addressed, it has created massive “collateral damage”: the spread of avoidable diseases; use of drugs in dangerous forms; mass criminalisation and incarceration; a gigantic waste of public resources; corruption; creation of a cross-border network of organised crime; and the subversion of states. Mexico is perhaps the most important contemporary victim. It is a war with myriad innocent victims.

The argument for prohibition is that it would lead to an ever-diminishing market in controlled drugs. In practice, the opposite has happened: in the 10 years to 2008, according to the UN, global use of opiates has risen by 34.5 per cent, of cocaine by 27 per cent and of cannabis by 8.5 per cent. If this is a successful policy, what would a failed one look like?

The thrust of the report is that the challenges associated with the use and abuse of drugs – a pervasive feature of human societies – should be approached pragmatically, as a problem in public health, not moralistically, as a problem of crime.

The report offers powerful specific recommendations: have an open debate on the failure of current policy; replace the criminalisation and punishment of users with evidence-based treatment; encourage experimentation with a regulated legal supply of less harmful drugs, such as cannabis, and decriminalisation of use, along with supply via prescription, of more harmful drugs such as heroin; stop measuring the number of people in prison or drugs seized and focus on outcomes, such as the levels of drug dependence, violence, disease and death by overdose; challenge the misconceptions fed by panic-mongers; shift the focus of the criminal justice system toward violent organised crime; develop alternatives to incarceration for small-scale and first-time drug dealers; and, above all, focus on what actually works.

None of this is new. But from such a group it is surely revolutionary.

Some of the points are particularly compelling. Consider the huge costs of criminalisation, for example. In the US, the number of people in prisons has risen from 300,000 in 1972 to 2.3m today, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, overwhelmingly because of the war on drugs. One in 31 US adults is now in jail, on probation or on parole. Though African Americans are just 14 per cent of regular drug users, they account for 37 per cent of drug arrests and 56 per cent of those in prison. It is amazing that more Americans do not find this scandalous. However other countries have followed a similar route, including the UK, with devastating consequences. In some countries, minor drug suppliers are even executed, which is truly horrifying.

Again, some of the experiments with harm-reduction approaches have been remarkably successful. The report notes, for example, that the Swiss heroin substitution approach, which targeted hard-core users, has substantially reduced consumption and the number of new addicts. It has also secured a 90 per cent reduction in property crimes by those participating in the programme. Countries such as the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Australia, with active needle-exchange programmes, have about a fifth of the US levels of HIV-prevalence among those who inject drugs.

In July 2001, Portugal became the first European country to decriminalise use and possession (as opposed to supply) of all illegal drugs. Since then, use has risen slightly, but fully in line with the increase in other similar countries. “Within this general trend,” says the report, “there has also been a specific decline in the use of heroin, which was in 2001 the main concern of the Portuguese government.”

Yet another important point is the irrationality of the categorisation of drugs. Expert ranking of the harmfulness of drugs puts alcohol, for example, well above many illegal substances, such as cannabis.

The report brings out some of the dire unintended consequences of the drugs war. One is the scale of the black market that now exists. Another is the creation of a vested interest in the maintenance of what we must call “the drugs suppression industry”. Yet another is the “geographical displacement”, as suppression of supply in one place leads to its almost inevitable shift to somewhere else. And another again is “substance displacement”, as consumers shift from one drug to another in response to changes in supply. All this is the inevitable consequence of efforts to suppress powerful market forces. In addition, there are dire social results from taking a punitive approach to the behaviour of users who have too often been the victims of abuse, suffer from mental illness, or come from marginalised social groups.

The biggest conclusion I draw from this report is that policies made in the grip of moral panic and punitive fervour are bound to be a catastrophe. So it has proved in this case: here we have a policy that has failed to achieve its main aims, but has imposed huge collateral costs.

The report calls for an urgent shift in approach, led, if possible, by the UN system. That is, alas, unlikely. But individual countries and groups of countries should shrug off the efforts of the US to export its punitive approach to the rest of the world and think for themselves, instead. Humanity does not have to be the victim of these savage efforts to prevent drug abuse. The time has come to think again. If we are brave, the publication of this report could mark a turn towards rationality.

Idealists like to ignore the last 50 years, or merely resort to screaming about morals and ignoring reality.

Of course, all that are backing re report are safely retired so can say what they think. Those with jobs - and hence vested interests - of course are dead against anything that would cut their power / funding.

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2011, 02:05
Sometimes the opponents of the drug war are there own worse enemies.

I was walking around downtown in a western Washington city yesterday. I happened upon a large crowd watching gravity powered derby vehicles go down a short section of blocked off road.

Throughout the crowd were a variety of people, from a guy in dress shirt and slacks to goth types wearing lots of black to people with lots of tattoos, though mostly just people wearing casual clothing.

One man stood out as being the sketchiest person there, by a huge margin. He made dirty grimy homeless people look cleaned up - his clothing was sewed together tatters (his pants looked like they were made of 50 separate pieces of cloth), he was unshaved and his long hair had formed dreadlocks (and he was white).

And he was trying to gather signatures for the marijuana legalization initiative; https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/about/

:wall:

CR

Samurai Waki
06-06-2011, 02:42
Yes... Portland has their fair share of them as well. Whoever is in marketing needs to get his :daisy: kicked.

Ice
06-06-2011, 03:23
Sometimes the opponents of the drug war are there own worse enemies.

I was walking around downtown in a western Washington city yesterday. I happened upon a large crowd watching gravity powered derby vehicles go down a short section of blocked off road.

Throughout the crowd were a variety of people, from a guy in dress shirt and slacks to goth types wearing lots of black to people with lots of tattoos, though mostly just people wearing casual clothing.

One man stood out as being the sketchiest person there, by a huge margin. He made dirty grimy homeless people look cleaned up - his clothing was sewed together tatters (his pants looked like they were made of 50 separate pieces of cloth), he was unshaved and his long hair had formed dreadlocks (and he was white).

And he was trying to gather signatures for the marijuana legalization initiative; https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/about/

:wall:

CR

I know. It really sucks because people will see them and say "see, I told you all these guys are just stupid pothead losers". They are doing more harm than good.

phonicsmonkey
06-06-2011, 04:08
I'm amazed you would rather lock people in jail often ruining their lives and breaking up families rather than let them indulge in a habit that hurts no one besides themselves. Legalizing drugs would often have the added benefit of allowing the government easier access to tracking them and offering the treatment they need to get clean.

You are ignoring the fact that addicts of drugs like meth, crack and heroin will steal to support their habit regardless of whether they are buying from a legal or an illegal source.

Just look at the social harm caused by gambling addiction in places where high-stakes gambling is both legal and easily accessible. Australia for example.


Once again, please for the love of god, stop lumping all drugs together. Drugs like cannabis, LSD, mushrooms, escstasy, khat, and other soft drugs have been shown to be relatively harmless in moderation and much less dangerous than alcohol.

I agree that it's important to distinguish between the effects and level of harm associated with different drugs. However you also seem to be lumping a group of different substances together and generalising over them. It's not at all correct to say that these drugs you mention, as a group, have been shown to be 'relatively harmless', whatever that means.

Just as an example, cannabis has been shown in clinical research to have a strong link with schizophrenia. (we'll ignore for a second the strong link between cannabis use and lung cancer because of the complicating effect of tobacco inhalation). LSD use has strong associations with mental illness. MDMA is theorised to lead to long-term seratonin depletion and depression. Khat causes mouth cancer.

Of course none of these links are more than theories backed by evidence but it just isn't correct to say that the use of these substances is unproblematic. And I'm not sure that something's being 'less dangerous than alcohol' is a good testament to its harmlessness, when alcohol is so terribly dangerous itself for so many reasons.


You seem to live in a fantasy world where obtaining these hard drugs is impossible simply because they are illegal; this is simply not true.

For large numbers of people it is simply extremely difficult to purchase some illegal drugs because they are illegal and these people don't move in circles in which they will come into contact with dealers. Of course if someone is determined it would be relatively trivial, but it's hard to imagine a situation where (for example) an office worker with no previous drug experience and whose wife leaves him turns to crystal meth for comfort and becomes an addict, the way it can currently happen with alcohol or gambling.

Ice
06-06-2011, 05:19
You are ignoring the fact that addicts of drugs like meth, crack and heroin will steal to support their habit regardless of whether they are buying from a legal or an illegal source.

Just look at the social harm caused by gambling addiction in places where high-stakes gambling is both legal and easily accessible. Australia for example.

I'm not ignoring anything. I realize that these drugs will often make people become desperate for their next fix. Like I said though, I'd rather the drug be legal so it would be easier to track who is buying what and allow these addicts to seek treatment.




I agree that it's important to distinguish between the effects and level of harm associated with different drugs. However you also seem to be lumping a group of different substances together and generalizing over them. It's not at all correct to say that these drugs you mention, as a group, have been shown to be 'relatively harmless', whatever that means.

You missed the part about moderation.


Just as an example, cannabis has been shown in clinical research to have a strong link with schizophrenia.

You are missing the part about the person already being prone to schizophrenia for this link to occur. Smoking cannabis doesn't all of a sudden turn someone into a schizophrenic... that's plain [censored].


(we'll ignore for a second the strong link between cannabis use and lung cancer because of the complicating effect of tobacco inhalation).


What strong link? You just said it yourself, any study that attempts to prove this often does not control for certain variables like tobacco or other drug use. I'm all eyes if you want to provide one.



LSD use has strong associations with mental illness.

Key word, MODERATION. Show me a study that backs up the claim that occasional LSD uses causes one to lose their mind. I realize that if someone is dropping 10 tabs of acid per day, there probably will be adverse effects just as if someone drinks 10 cups of coffee a day or a case of beer bad things will happen.


MDMA is theorised to lead to long-term seratonin depletion and depression.

Moderation.


Khat causes mouth cancer.

So does tobacco, yet I can go buy a pick of cigarettes, a can of a chew, or a box of cigars from a local vendor down the street. Is Khat worse than tobacco? Why isn't tobacco illegal if it's so bad?


Of course none of these links are more than theories backed by evidence but it just isn't correct to say that the use of these substances is unproblematic. And I'm not sure that something's being 'less dangerous than alcohol' is a good testament to its harmlessness, when alcohol is so terribly dangerous itself for so many reasons.


If booze is so bad make it illegal. Oh wait, we tried that and it failed miserably kind of like the current war on drugs. So you admit that alcohol is so terribly dangerous, yet legal, but argue that other drugs that aren't as dangerous should stay illegal? I don't understand the logic.



For large numbers of people it is simply extremely difficult to purchase some illegal drugs because they are illegal and these people don't move in circles in which they will come into contact with dealers. Of course if someone is determined it would be relatively trivial, but it's hard to imagine a situation where (for example) an office worker with no previous drug experience and whose wife leaves him turns to crystal meth for comfort and becomes an addict, the way it can currently happen with alcohol or gambling.


You just proved my point. If someone really wants something, they will get it. However, even if legal, I highly doubt the troubled office worker will turn to meth or heroin to comfort themselves; Gambling and alcohol are generally more accepted by society.

Bottom line is either make all drugs illegal or make them legal. I'd lean towards making them all legal as we have seen what trying enforce probation on society has accomplished via the report I just posted.

Edit:

See Page 15 of the report for an assessment of the dangers of certain drugs.

phonicsmonkey
06-06-2011, 06:51
You are missing the part about the person already being prone to schizophrenia for this link to occur. Smoking cannabis doesn't all of a sudden turn someone into a schizophrenic... that's plain :daisy:.

Actually it's not clear from the broader research whether there is such a thing as being 'prone' to schizophrenia.

But that aside, even a drug which triggers schizophrenia in people who have a tendency towards it (and might not otherwise suffer from it) cannot be said to be harmless.


Key word, MODERATION.

Whatever that means in practice. My point is you used the word 'harmless' and I don't think it's appropriate.


So does tobacco, yet I can go buy a pick of cigarettes, a can of a chew, or a box of cigars from a local vendor down the street. Is Khat worse than tobacco? Why isn't tobacco illegal if it's so bad?

Perhaps it should be. Governments around the world seem to be slowly coming to that view, banning its use in public places, banning advertising and even (in Australia) hiding it from view in shops and forcing tobacco companies to use plain packaging. Everything short of banning it in fact.

But this is irrelevant - my point was you said Khat is 'relatively harmless in moderation'. I don't think that's factual, accurate, or a helpful description of the substance and its effects in the context of this discussion.


If booze is so bad make it illegal. Oh wait, we tried that and it failed miserably kind of like the current war on drugs. So you admit that alcohol is so terribly dangerous, yet legal, but argue that other drugs that aren't as dangerous should stay illegal? I don't understand the logic.

Actually I think you are misconstruing my point. At no point did I say I wanted drugs to be illegal or legal. I just sought to outline some of the hazards which in your posts so far did not get an airing.

In fact the debate around legalising (or decriminalising) drugs is rightly framed in terms of a cost / benefit analysis between the harm which would be caused by increased access and reduction of social stigma versus the ongoing harm to communities, individuals and society from enforcement activities and other issues related to criminalisation.

In that context it is crucially important to have a frank and honest assessment of harm and not to gloss over the potential ill effects of (eg.) 'soft' drugs or of making dangerously addictive substances more available to the population at large.

For something spine-chilling, imagine you suddenly decriminalised this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/30/oxi-crack-cocaine-south-america?INTCMP=SRCH) and a local businessman decided to import and distribute it in your town under licence from government.

Slyspy
06-06-2011, 12:50
Yes that would be very bad for public health. Still, I guess we will just have to wait until it hits the streets via the normal illegal channels whereupon it becomes an issue for public health and law enforcement.

Edit:

I should say that in such a situation I have little faith in either the current health systems or the legal systems dealing with the issue.

Fragony
06-06-2011, 15:08
Simple question Ice, aren't you just looking for the recognision: 'weed smokers aren't bad'. To me it seems that you are a little bit to anxious to mess with the way of things. Bit egocentral perhaps?

Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2011, 15:35
Simple question Ice, aren't you just looking for the recognision: 'weed smokers aren't bad'. To me it seems that you are a little bit to anxious to mess with the way of things. Bit egocentral perhaps?

What the...?

Perhaps you should take a look at what the war on drug users has done to America. We don't want recognition, we want the war on American people to end. There's nothing egocentric to that, and to suggest so ignores basically everything said in this thread.

CR

Ice
06-06-2011, 18:49
Actually it's not clear from the broader research whether there is such a thing as being 'prone' to schizophrenia.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559-1,00.html


But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population. (See a photoessay on a father with mental illness.)

One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana. Still, some studies suggest that smoking pot can actually trigger the disease earlier in individuals who are predisposed, and yet researchers still aren't seeing increases in the overall schizophrenia rate or decreases in the average age of onset.

In recent months, new research has explored some of these issues. One study led by Dr. Serge Sevy, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, looked at 100 patients between the ages of 16 and 40 with schizophrenia, half of whom smoked marijuana. Sevy and colleagues found that among the marijuana users, 75% had begun smoking before the onset of schizophrenia and that their disease appeared about two years earlier than in those who did not use the drug. But when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, including gender, education and socioeconomic status, the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared.


That being said, I'm done with this thread as I'm not turning this into a personal pissing contest. If you want to ignore this report and hundreds of other cases that suggest the current drug war is causing far more harm than good (I'd argue that it isn't causing any good) than be my guest. All I ask for is you read the relevant literature that I have posted.

phonicsmonkey
06-07-2011, 00:18
All I ask for is you read the relevant literature that I have posted.

I have read it and thank you for posting it. I am not decided myself on this issue and have enjoyed the discussion.

B-Wing
06-07-2011, 05:04
Very interesting thread! Haven't read all replies thoroughly, but I wanted to add my 2 cents. Firstly, I am libertarian in most of my political views, and therefore tend to favor as few laws as possible, so obviously my opinion of drug regulation is going to be pretty negative. But can we at least agree that there's no good reason to keep non-medical marijuana illegal? The only aspects of this drug that aren't basically harmless are the cartels that supply it. And they have to be dangerous because it's illegal. If it became perfectly legal for any company or individual to grow marijuana in their back yard, what happens to the cartel's power? I assume it would all but disappear.

I can see both sides of the debate about legalizing heroin or crack cocaine because they are highly addictive and have a tendency to ruin people's lives (without the law's involvement). But can we at least agree that legalizing marijuana could only do good for the country (speaking as a US citizen)?

Seamus Fermanagh
06-07-2011, 05:34
I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't what we have now. Coca grow faster than bullets. The weapons industry has made an absolute killing from both sides.

And when, anytime in the last 6 millenia, has the weapons industry not found a way to thrive? The ploughshares folks have had a few rough patches, but Krupps et al seem to do just fine.

PanzerJaeger
06-07-2011, 06:02
A couple points - unlike murder and robberies, no one is hurt by the act of someone getting high.

I generally agree that our anti-drug strategy needs serious reform. It only takes a few minutes in Rabbit's thread to see the deadly excesses of the current approach. However, substance abuse, including that involving alcohol, tobacco, or drugs, has tremendous social costs - and those costs should be factored in to any public policy decisions on the subject.

People mock prohibition, but don't seem to understand the mindset behind it. Just because alcohol cannot effectively be banned does not mean that it does not constitute a huge detriment to the public health without offering any substantive benefits. We as a society have just decided that the hundreds of thousands of drunk driving deaths and the billions of dollars in property damage associated with it, the millions of lives lost and the social potential they represent, and the millions of broken families and dysfunctional children of alcohol abuse, are worth the ability to go out on the weekend and get wasted. :shrug:

Also, I would suggest ending the use of the generic term "drugs" in crafting such future decisions. Individual drugs vary greatly in their effects, and lumping them all together is part of the current flawed public mindset. For example, making marijuana legal, and thus easily attainable, would involve a far different cost/benefit analysis than doing the same for crystal meth.

phonicsmonkey
06-07-2011, 06:41
I generally agree that our anti-drug strategy needs serious reform. It only takes a few minutes in Rabbit's thread to see the deadly excesses of the current approach. However, substance abuse, including that involving alcohol, tobacco, or drugs, has tremendous social costs - and those costs should be factored in to any public policy decisions on the subject.

People mock prohibition, but don't seem to understand the mindset behind it. Just because alcohol cannot effectively be banned does not mean that it does not constitute a huge detriment to the public health without offering any substantive benefits. We as a society have just decided that the hundreds of thousands of drunk driving deaths and the billions of dollars in property damage associated with it, the millions of lives lost and the social potential they represented, and the millions of broken families and dysfunctional children of alcohol abuse, are worth the ability to go out on the weekend and get wasted. :shrug:

Also, I would suggest ending the use of the generic term "drugs" in crafting such future decisions. Individual drugs vary greatly in their effects, and lumping them all together is part of the current flawed public mindset. For example, making marijuana legal, and thus easily attainable, would involve a far different cost/benefit analysis than doing the same for crystal meth.

Hear hear.

Fragony
06-07-2011, 12:47
What the...?

Perhaps you should take a look at what the war on drug users has done to America. We don't want recognition, we want the war on American people to end. There's nothing egocentric to that, and to suggest so ignores basically everything said in this thread.

CR

I'm perfectly fine with stopping the war on users, but not the war on the substance. I thouroughly disagree with the state regulating it as it will be a bloodbath that can easily be avoided, do you want to import the Mexican problem just cause you get to say that it's legal the kartels won't accept it, it's a war in war kinda way there 40.000 dead in a few year over trade routes . Just allow small quantities and let the bad guys keep killing eachother over what is just a currency for them, everybody happy all problems avoided

edit, with recognision I meant personal recognision. Like a smoke or a sniff myself and I wouldn't want to be called a bad person over it, but it just isn't worth it

rory_20_uk
06-07-2011, 14:02
Was there a bloodbath when Prohibition ended? I don't recall there being one.

Legalise the drugs, tax them and move revenues to the governments, not the criminals. Only by placing the margins under pressure will the problems be improved.

~:smoking:

Slyspy
06-07-2011, 16:41
Is there any value in legalising some drug but not others I wonder?

Samurai Waki
06-07-2011, 18:24
And when, anytime in the last 6 millenia, has the weapons industry not found a way to thrive? The ploughshares folks have had a few rough patches, but Krupps et al seem to do just fine.

One less avenue for major profit, the proliferation of guns is obviously not going to go away; Krupps will still do fine from the profits used to kill brown children from other nefarious reasons.. not Krupps fault, they're just supplying what's demanded.

Fragony
06-07-2011, 20:48
Was there a bloodbath when Prohibition ended? I don't recall there being one.

Legalise the drugs, tax them and move revenues to the governments, not the criminals. Only by placing the margins under pressure will the problems be improved.

~:smoking:

How can you be so naive, as if these facilitaties that grow legal won't be attacked, wait for the for the first youtube video's of American necks meeting an electrical buzzsaw. Government will certainly be less hardcore than crime kartels they cut down

Crazed Rabbit
06-08-2011, 02:17
How can you be so naive, as if these facilitaties that grow legal won't be attacked, wait for the for the first youtube video's of American necks meeting an electrical buzzsaw. Government will certainly be less hardcore than crime kartels they cut down

That makes no sense.

Why in the world would you have a gang and go out killing people when you could just grow your own weed legally?

CR

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 02:39
Society is stronger than what most people think. People like to talk about how the newest generation is the worst to ever come about since Aristotle. People think that without a mommy and daddy that everything will fall apart, despite the fact there are more screw ups living in their parents (AKA mom and dad) basement's at 29 then there are kids broken because both their parents had the same genitals.

Drugs are not going to kill society. Like with most things, drugs are a symptom that society is broken not a cause of breakage. If you have rampant drug use, you might want to ask yourself why people want to escape so much. The real reason why Portugal has lower drug use despite it's liberal drug laws? It's because their society is healthier and it shows from it's interaction with their government. They don't need government to cover up the symptoms of a bad society.

Also, alcohol, a terrible, terrible drug is abused, has done more to bring people together than anything other human invention until the internet. Fact.

phonicsmonkey
06-08-2011, 03:04
Legalise the drugs, tax them and move revenues to the governments, not the criminals.

Why is everybody apparently comfortable with governments profiteering from the misery of drug addicts? Do we like the fact that they currently exploit the addictions of smokers, alcoholics and people with gambling problems? Does it put them in a good position to objectively judge the best public policy stance on these issues?

Or does it instead create a horrific conflict of interest?

HopAlongBunny
06-08-2011, 05:17
I would rather have the gov't profiteering from drug use, than selling arms to both sides and killing people world-wide. An addicted user would still be "within" the law, hence society. The problem can be treated (it might even be cheaper to put them on maintenance) the individual can be dealt with. Making the person a criminal has huge costs: food, shelter, clothing, security, security, security; and what does your druggie learn?
Why, how to be a better criminal! Hurray!!!

I think it was Foucault who noted that the criminal justice system excels at one function: the production of a criminal class.

ajaxfetish
06-08-2011, 05:38
Why is everybody apparently comfortable with governments profiteering from the misery of drug addicts? Do we like the fact that they currently exploit the addictions of smokers, alcoholics and people with gambling problems? Does it put them in a good position to objectively judge the best public policy stance on these issues?

Or does it instead create a horrific conflict of interest?

I'm okay with the government making a profit, particularly considering that drugs have society-wide costs (lost productivity, worse health, etc.) that are likely to fall to the taxpayer anyhow. If this is a particular worry, it could always be set up such that drug taxes go directly to drug treatment programs. The savings for the government in terms of law enforcement and corrections would make it financially beneficial to end the 'War on Drugs' even without drug tax revenues added in.

Ajax

phonicsmonkey
06-08-2011, 06:17
I would rather have the gov't profiteering from drug use, than selling arms to both sides and killing people world-wide.

I don't agree that it has to be one or the other!


The problem can be treated (it might even be cheaper to put them on maintenance) the individual can be dealt with.

Sure, but who is going to do this? The very same goverment that profits greatly from their addiction and has a vested interest in it continuing?


Making the person a criminal has huge costs: food, shelter, clothing, security, security, security; and what does your druggie learn?
Why, how to be a better criminal! Hurray!!!

Agreed, enforcement is enormously costly and we need to think of new approaches to the issue as a whole. But let's not naievely believe that our democratically elected, largely corrupt and unrepresentative western goverments would suddenly find themselves able to craft enlightened public policy around drug abatement when they have largely failed to address the issues of tobacco, alcohol and gambling addiction. Especially when (in the hypothesis) it is a massive new revenue source for them at a time when developed world fiscal positions are so utterly dire...

Also, let's get this straight. There is no-one that has been 'made' a criminal by the existing laws. Everyone who purchases, uses and deals drugs has at some stage made a positive decision to break the law in the full knowledge that they are committing a crime. This is not a moral judgement on my part, but simply a factual statement. So let's not pretend otherwise.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 08:23
That makes no sense.

Why in the world would you have a gang and go out killing people when you could just grow your own weed legally?

CR

Because you can't compete with the kartels, Mexico can't even fight them military do you think they will accept the loss of their greatest market. If you grow it yourself the people doing it are going to be at the receiving end of an electrical buzzsaw very soon, you will import all the horror the kartels have to offer, everyone affiliated with destroying their profits will be a target, better get used to whole family's being killed like in Mexico you will really be at war

Viking
06-08-2011, 08:47
Also, alcohol, a terrible, terrible drug is abused, has done more to bring people together than anything other human invention until the internet. Fact.

I think you are forgetting wars.

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 08:51
Because you can't compete with the kartels, Mexico can't even fight them military do you think they will accept the loss of their greatest market. If you grow it yourself the people doing it are going to be at the receiving end of an electrical buzzsaw very soon, you will import all the horror the kartels have to offer, everyone affiliated with destroying their profits will be a target, better get used to whole family's being killed like in Mexico you will really be at war

Except if drugs were legalized it really wouldn't be average people growing and selling on their own, it would be corporations. You telling me that the cartels are going to start blowing up Philip Morris's weed division headquarters?

If drugs are legalized, than you have more players getting involved than just the cartels and the cartels can't kick them all out through violence. Every consequence that you list is thus invalid.

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 08:53
I think you are forgetting wars.

Nah, wars are cheap paint jobs that don't actually unify. Alcohol brings families together, it loosen lips and legs and it allows people share and build relationships that last for a lifetime. Wars are temporary collaborations that actually do the exact opposite, they destroy and destroy until there is nothing left to destroy but the collaboration itself.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 09:05
Except if drugs were legalized it really wouldn't be average people growing and selling on their own, it would be corporations. You telling me that the cartels are going to start blowing up Philip Morris's weed division headquarters?

Yeah they are really going to do that and what can you do about it call the police, and if that don't scares you of enough you will find a video of Phillip Morris family being decapitated with an electrical saw (it's slow) on lifeleak. You are outgunned in every way you are not prepared for this kind of terror.

Is there an SA here to tell the Disneyland neighbours how things work

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 09:23
Yeah they are really going to do that and what can you do about it call the police, and if that don't scares you of enough you will find a video of Phillip Morris family being decapitated with an electrical saw (it's slow) on lifeleak. You are outgunned in every way you are not prepared for this kind of terror.

Is there an SA here to tell the Disneyland neighbours how things work

Idk what to say except I disagree. I think that the US isn't Mexico and I don't think that a company will be completely bombed under the radar of the FBI. I also think that even if they do, it won't matter. Phillip Morris will still be pushing the product, the US citizen will buy from the "friendlier and safer" source and the cartels will die off anyway.

Also, if the cartels attack us, all it will do is piss off the American public, not scare them. American's are not going to reverse their law because of them "Hispanic terrorists", we will just give more money to the border guard and TSA.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 09:44
Idk what to say except I disagree. I think that the US isn't Mexico and I don't think that a company will be completely bombed under the radar of the FBI. I also think that even if they do, it won't matter. Phillip Morris will still be pushing the product, the US citizen will buy from the "friendlier and safer" source and the cartels will die off anyway.

Also, if the cartels attack us, all it will do is piss off the American public, not scare them. American's are not going to reverse their law because of them "Hispanic terrorists", we will just give more money to the border guard and TSA.

I am sure they are very intimidated by pissed of Americans, surely more than they are by Mexico's own military. Do you want private security having to carry anti-tank weapons? You probably think gated communities are bad, mentally add some watchtowers and barracks around your hycienta. You really can't beat them why make a minor problem a huge one,

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 10:02
I am sure they are very intimidated by pissed of Americans, surely more than they are by Mexico's own military. Do you want private security having to carry anti-tank weapons? You probably think gated communities are bad, mentally add some watchtowers and barracks around your hycienta. You really can't beat them why make a minor problem a huge one,

Question. If Phillip Morris starts competing in the drug business and they start spamming advertisements and everything else a company does to get as many consumers as possible, they will most likely be taking away all the business from the cartels as US citizens give their money to Phillip Morris and not the cartels.

So how will the cartels roll in with tanks and bomb Phillip Morris when they won't have any money coming in anymore? Do you think that given the choice between a 7/11 or a drug dealer that a person will willingly decide to buy from a cartel drug dealer instead of the bright, clean, regulated 7/11?

Fragony
06-08-2011, 10:13
Question. If Phillip Morris starts competing in the drug business and they start spamming advertisements and everything else a company does to get as many consumers as possible, they will most likely be taking away all the business from the cartels as US citizens give their money to Phillip Morris and not the cartels.

So how will the cartels roll in with tanks and bomb Phillip Morris when they won't have any money coming in anymore? Do you think that given the choice between a 7/11 or a drug dealer that a person will willingly decide to buy from a cartel drug dealer instead of the bright, clean, regulated 7/11?

Not tanks, armoured vehicles with shooting holes, police don't stand a chance unless they bring anti-armour. You are rationalising from a reality where these kartels don't exist but they just do, there won't be any legal source to buy from they will be burned down long before

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 10:21
Not tanks, armoured vehicles with shooting holes, police don't stand a chance unless they bring anti-armour. You are rationalising from a reality where these kartels don't exist but they just do, there won't be any legal source to buy from they will be burned down long before

The cartel's won't be able to roam into America and burn down every convenience store that sells pot.

Medical pot dispensaries have been for the most part been where a lot of Californian's get pot for recreational use. There are 100's of them in LA alone. Not one has been burned down. Your statements as to what will happen are just not realistic.

TheLastDays
06-08-2011, 10:25
And you don't think that a company like Philipp Morris has the funds to pay their own private security force that is armed with anti armour weapons to protect their property? I think they do and, unlike the cartels who are hated, they will have everyone on their side as they are just defending, which means, people will still buy from Philipp Morris and the cartels will eventually, maybe after doing some damage, die out because after all they are not terrorists who fight for an ideal. Their "soldiers" aren't on a holy war, they are mercenaries and when mercenaries don't get paid, what do they do?

Fragony
06-08-2011, 10:45
And you don't think that a company like Philipp Morris has the funds to pay their own private security force that is armed with anti armour weapons to protect their property? I think they do and, unlike the cartels who are hated, they will have everyone on their side as they are just defending, which means, people will still buy from Philipp Morris and the cartels will eventually, maybe after doing some damage, die out because after all they are not terrorists who fight for an ideal. Their "soldiers" aren't on a holy war, they are mercenaries and when mercenaries don't get paid, what do they do?

Sure, but is it worth the trouble. Surely you can equip private security with big guns, but you can also just don't make it necesary. If you just stop trouble over what's small you don't have to deal with what's big, just stop locking up users presto

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 10:50
Sure, but is it worth the trouble. Surely you can equip private security with big guns, but you can also just don't make it necesary. If you just stop trouble over what's small you don't have to deal with what's big, just stop locking up users presto

So the options are:

A) Legalize drugs, take a few years of cartel retaliation, then enjoy their demise and bask in the extra freedom and safety the world now has.
or
B) Don't legalize drugs. Make sure they don't attack us but just keep to themselves killing people in Mexico and have our treasury depleted fighting them until the end of time.

And you think B is the best choice?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-08-2011, 10:53
Sure, but is it worth the trouble. Surely you can equip private security with big guns, but you can also just don't make it necesary. If you just stop trouble over what's small you don't have to deal with what's big, just stop locking up users presto

I still find this extraordinary as a debate.

"Hard" druges, like Cocaine and Heroin are heinous in their effect on people, Meth and Acid rot your insides, LCD actually simulates shitzophrenia, and Hash has all the downsides of tobacoo with the added bonus that even moderate indulgence seriously bluntes your intellect and can cause mental health problems as well as memory problems if you take it when you're young.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 11:02
So the options are:

A) Legalize drugs, take a few years of cartel retaliation, then enjoy their demise and bask in the extra freedom and safety the world now has.
or
B) Don't legalize drugs. Make sure they don't attack us but just keep to themselves killing people in Mexico and have our treasury depleted fighting them until the end of time.

And you think B is the best choice?

Well yeah, B absolutely, as they won't just vanish anyway. You lost this decades ago you can't just undo that.

Viking
06-08-2011, 11:05
Alcohol brings families together

Quite the opposite..


it allows people share and build relationships that last for a lifetime.

No, it is the human nature that allows that.


Wars are temporary collaborations that actually do the exact opposite, they destroy and destroy until there is nothing left to destroy but the collaboration itself.

They are temporary, but they can make a big lasting difference. They could remove centuries old rivalry in a nation/area and replace it with a co-operative and more united future.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 11:08
I still find this extraordinary as a debate.

"Hard" druges, like Cocaine and Heroin are heinous in their effect on people, Meth and Acid rot your insides, LCD actually simulates shitzophrenia, and Hash has all the downsides of tobacoo with the added bonus that even moderate indulgence seriously bluntes your intellect and can cause mental health problems as well as memory problems if you take it when you're young.

Not my planet I just live on it

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 11:33
Quite the opposite..
I guess it depends on the family. My family always has a fun time when my grandma, aunt and other elder relatives break out the wine and start reminiscing about embarrassing/awesome stories during Thanksgiving/Easter/Christmas/any other holiday they come over.



No, it is the human nature that allows that.
Not really. Alcohol is a social lubricant. If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it. You can make more friends in uni by going to parties frequently than any other way. Those that are already friendly become even more friendly and those that are more introverted like me, become more social after a few. You seem to be making the claim that alcohol is not needed to become social and network and yet it is used so much exactly for that purpose.



They are temporary, but they can make a big lasting difference. They could remove centuries old rivalry in a nation/area and replace it with a co-operative and more united future.
If one side completely wipes out the other, then yes. France/England didn't get along because they finally reached a certain threshold of wars. Free market and financial dependence created peace. What instance has there been where both sides suddenly became best friends after killing each other?

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 11:35
Well yeah, B absolutely, as they won't just vanish anyway. You lost this decades ago you can't just undo that.

Why would they not go away? They have no more money. Where is their power? Power doesn't just come from nowhere. Just because they are here does not mean they will always be here. Your logic is flawed.

Shibumi
06-08-2011, 11:42
Wait, Fragony is suggesting that if we legalize weed in Sweden (or where ever) we will have heavily armed cartel mercs in APCs on a rampage all over the rural areas.

Somehow I am ready to go out on a limb here and take the chance.

I think the real question of this thread is what Fragony is taking, and how we can get a hold of it.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 11:46
Why would they not go away? They have no more money. Where is their power? Power doesn't just come from nowhere. Just because they are here does not mean they will always be here. Your logic is flawed.

They will not go away because they can outfund everything you throw at them 10:1 it's of no use

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 11:50
They will not go away because they can outfund everything you throw at them 10:1 it's of no use

They won't have money if no one is buying drugs from them. This is the key point here.

Shibumi
06-08-2011, 11:59
They won't have money if no one is buying drugs from them. This is the key point here.

No, the key point is the cartels ability to, with military means, crack down on western nation states.

Sure, they have B-countries such as Mexico and Brazil in their grasp (but only because it is still illegal there, and the countries are B-countries anyway). To think the drug cartels could stand up to a A-nation is a joke though. Sure they can get their hands in as long as it is illegal, but legalize and you would have half-empty-glasses of mercs against the industrialized western worlds army.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 12:03
Wait, Fragony is suggesting that if we legalize weed in Sweden (or where ever) we will have heavily armed cartel mercs in APCs on a rampage all over the rural areas.

Somehow I am ready to go out on a limb here and take the chance.

I think the real question of this thread is what Fragony is taking, and how we can get a hold of it.

Don't tallk as if I'm arent here, you don't have to adress me by proxy. Sweden isn't America they don't have a huge border with Mexico for example, they just don't because Sweden is on the other side of planet earth. It is, check your map I'm not making it up

TheLastDays
06-08-2011, 12:21
Somehow I don't get what you're saying there...
Their power comes from their money, take their money and they have no power at all. They can hide in countries like Mexico and there it's freakin hard to get them because you practically have to invade against a Guerilla force and in a defensive war Guerilla tactics are very effective.

If they want to attack Philipp Morris they'd basically have to invade the US and that's a whole other story...

Also



"Hard" druges, like Cocaine and Heroin are heinous in their effect on people, Meth and Acid rot your insides, LCD actually simulates shitzophrenia, and Hash has all the downsides of tobacoo with the added bonus that even moderate indulgence seriously bluntes your intellect and can cause mental health problems as well as memory problems if you take it when you're young.

I totally agree, I was just taking my point on the discussion that was going on. If you ask me you can't go ahead and give these things to people at all but the problem is, they are getting the stuff anyway, so you have to ask yourself how you can minimize the negative side effects for the part of society that doesn't take drugs

Viking
06-08-2011, 12:23
I guess it depends on the family. My family always has a fun time when my grandma, aunt and other elder relatives break out the wine and start reminiscing about embarrassing/awesome stories during Thanksgiving/Easter/Christmas/any other holiday they come over.

Alcohol causes divorces, it causes troubles because parents can turn into alcholics (common story) and because little kids may have to put up with drunk parents from time to time (a frightening experience for them). As for the 'bringing together' bit, I've already dealt with it - but I'll reiterate it below.



Not really. Alcohol is a social lubricant. If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it. You can make more friends in uni by going to parties frequently than any other way. Those that are already friendly become even more friendly and those that are more introverted like me, become more social after a few. You seem to be making the claim that alcohol is not needed to become social and network and yet it is used so much exactly for that purpose.

Yes really! Some animals are social and can form bonds that last their entire lives (e.g. humans), other animals not so social creatures that primarily meet during the mating season (e.g. tigers). Alchol does not change this the slightest - once the intoxication wears off, humans are pysically back to where they were before.

"If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it" is a terrible logical fallacy. People do not need the alcohol for socialisation, it only happens to be used for this purpose. It makes a difference, but not necessarily a positive one. In the larger picture, the sum will be negative: people will always bond, meet new people and enjoy themselves, but it takes alcohol for alchol induced fights, adultery, DWI and so on.



If one side completely wipes out the other, then yes. France/England didn't get along because they finally reached a certain threshold of wars. Free market and financial dependence created peace. What instance has there been where both sides suddenly became best friends after killing each other?

It does not have bring all of mankind together, but that was not the topic. Despite that, look what WWII did the to relationship Germany had with the rest of Europe - from being bad guys during Hitler's reign (considering the time before the outbreak of the war) to a respected member of the continent. So yes, wars can actually "unite" all of mankind (or less ambitious: the two sides in a conflict), given the right circumanstances.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 12:24
No, the key point is the cartels ability to, with military means, crack down on western nation states.

Sure, they have B-countries such as Mexico and Brazil in their grasp (but only because it is still illegal there, and the countries are B-countries anyway). To think the drug cartels could stand up to a A-nation is a joke though. Sure they can get their hands in as long as it is illegal, but legalize and you would have half-empty-glasses of mercs against the industrialized western worlds army.

Gawd at least someone gets it even if it is Shimubi. It is really war mia mucasa when you try all that, in the most literal way. Everytng is fine like it is

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 12:26
Everyone should stop abusing caffeine. And sugar. And salt.

All these compounds are dangerous and can kill you in high enough doses. If we really want our society to survive, we must live like the Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses and get rid of any chemical that alters our body's chemistry in some way.

TheLastDays
06-08-2011, 12:36
Everyone should stop abusing caffeine. And sugar. And salt.


Maybe you're right ;)

Andy, Fragony, if you read closely Shobumi was making a point against your argument, not for it...

a completely inoffensive name
06-08-2011, 12:40
Alcohol causes divorces, it causes troubles because parents can turn into alcholics (common story) and because little kids may have to put up with drunk parents from time to time (a frightening experience for them). As for the 'bringing together' bit, I've already dealt with it - but I'll reiterate it below.
This is why I took back my original statement saying I guess it depends on the family. Don't try to portray me as defending alcoholism.



Yes really! Some animals are social and can form bonds that last their entire lives (e.g. humans), other animals not so social creatures that primarily meet during the mating season (e.g. tigers). Alchol does not change this the slightest - once the intoxication wears off, humans are pysically back to where they were before.
But the interaction is not purely a physical one. The alcohol has created a bond between people that otherwise would not have formed. I'm not denying that people love to talk to other people, I am just saying that alcohol has helped that process more than anything else.



"If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it" is a terrible logical fallacy. People do not need the alcohol for socialisation, it only happens to be used for this purpose. It makes a difference, but not necessarily a positive one. In the larger picture, the sum will be negative: people will always bond, meet new people and enjoy themselves, but it takes alcohol for alchol induced fights, adultery, DWI and so on.
I hate most people. I need some alcohol in me before I start talking with idiots from the local kegger. Yes, humans are social, but alcohol amplifies it to a new level. Yes, you can make friends without alcohol, but you can make more, in an easier fashion when you do indulge in it with others. Some people do need to relax a bit before they cozy up with anyone. I am one of them.



It does not have bring all of mankind together, but that was not the topic. Despite that, look what WWII did the to relationship Germany had with the rest of Europe - from being bad guys during Hitler's reign (considering the time before the outbreak of the war) to a respected member of the continent. So yes, wars can actually "unite" all of mankind (or less ambitious: the two sides in a conflict), given the right circumanstances.
Respected? Forgive me, but from what I have read in this very forum, the idea of a unified Europe or any sort of co-dependence between European nations is very much not liked by more than a few Europeans. Does Greece respect Germany when they want bailouts without cutting back fiscally? Does the UK respect Germany when many UK citizens don't want to dive in and become part of the Euro/EU fold?

Nation's now respect Germany? Didn't wikileaks reveal that the US killed a German citizen by accident in a counter-terrorist operation and then told the German government to keep it under wraps?

No, wars don't lead to any meaningful "peace". When wars are done, everyone holds hands to remember those that have died, then go about being nations again. WW2 simply shifted the power structure away from Germany towards other nations, and thus the super powers treated Germany less as a threat and more as a pawn. This isn't respect.

EDIT: The more I read your responses, the more I think they mean nothing. You list the consequences of alcohol abuse and then are asserting that that applies to a majority of households. This isn't true. Alcohol use is extremely high, almost everyone drinks alcohol at least on holiday's, and if the situation was even 15% what you put it as, then the reality would be much different than it is today.

Basically I have said this:
"Alcohol brings more people together than anything else."

You reply with this:
"But it also brings people apart."

That does not negate my statement.

Fragony
06-08-2011, 12:50
Maybe you're right ;)

Andy, Fragony, if you read closely Shobumi was making a point against your argument, not for it...

No he didn't, he undestands it means trouble.

Shibumi
06-08-2011, 13:37
No he didn't, he undestands it means trouble.

Nope.

Cartel vs US military?
Cartel vs Swedish military?

I guess even the Dutch could kick off their wooden shoes in the general direction of cartel mercs. Maybe scaring them a little.

Jokes aside, no, the cartels are no threat what so ever to a western country. Only power they have, they have because it is illegal here (and there) to grow and use drugs.

naut
06-08-2011, 13:44
Interestingly enough the Mexican cartels already grow marijuana in the US.
45% of cannabis the US consumes is grown in the US. The rest largely comes of Canada, very little comes from Mexico, as little as 11%.

The Cartels thrive on cocaine and heroin. That is where the money is. There is no serious money in dealing cannabis, when compared to the hard stuff or prescription drugs.

naut
06-08-2011, 14:00
I still find this extraordinary as a debate.

"Hard" druges, like Cocaine and Heroin are heinous in their effect on people, Meth and Acid rot your insides, LCD actually simulates shitzophrenia, and Hash has all the downsides of tobacoo with the added bonus that even moderate indulgence seriously bluntes your intellect and can cause mental health problems as well as memory problems if you take it when you're young.
What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.

Shibumi
06-08-2011, 14:11
What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.

Now now, no need to insult him. There is way to much flaming on this forum without the moderators adding to the fuel.

I am no stranger to drugs, and I am all for some use and legalizing. With that said, he is not actually wrong.

Well, only part I would say he is wrong is that hash seriously blunts your intellect even when moderately used. He is of course right short term, but not in a longer perspective. Same as saying alcohol blunts the intellect, I do not exactly get all Einsteinian when drunk. Does not affect me half a year afterwards though, same as with THC.

So again, he is mainly right with what he say. But with that said - legalize for crying out loud!

If someone want to ruin their life with heroine - then by all means do.

If someone wants to eat a bit too much candy with a big smile on their face while playing Total War under the influence of Marijuana - then by all means do.

drone
06-08-2011, 16:05
Legalization would bring about better quality control. Many of the harmful physical effects of the harder drugs are caused by the crap the dealers put in it to cut the product. Proper refining and manufacture would eliminate many side effects.

Fragony, the legalization, and more importantly taxation, would eliminate the cartel's power and influence. Nothing gets a government's ire up more than the non-payment of revenue. The cartels wouldn't stand a chance.

Ice
06-08-2011, 16:51
Wait, Fragony is suggesting that if we legalize weed in Sweden (or where ever) we will have heavily armed cartel mercs in APCs on a rampage all over the rural areas.

Somehow I am ready to go out on a limb here and take the chance.

I think the real question of this thread is what Fragony is taking, and how we can get a hold of it.


What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.

For the win. So... much... misinformation in this thread...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-08-2011, 21:01
What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.

I would never claim to "know" about God, but thanks for the compliment anyway.

But, actually, I do know something about drugs and their effects on people. I come from a poor farming community and use of canabis and cocaine is 9or rather was) quite widespread. There were several men in their twenties who had heart attacks when I was a teenager, and I watched several friends descend into drug addiction, most of them are recovered now, but not all. Having said that, I also know alchoholics - fewer of those have recovered.

Here's the thing I don't understand, some of these drugs are much, much worse than alchohol. Also, "alchohol" is merely a component of many fine beverages, it isn't the point of them the way snorting cocaine on the back of a toilet is just about getting high; but the that doesn't extend to cheap manky cider designed to yet to smashed. I don't believe heroin should be legalisd, or cocaine, or meth, because taking them doesn't involve "risks", it's pretty much a sure thing. Meth will rot you from the inside out, as will Acid, Cocaine WILL knacker your heart at about four times the normal rate.

With Pot and things like LSD I am more ambivelant, given that most of the people I know who did Hash stopped more or less when they became legal adults I'm not convinced that legalising it is particularly worthwile on a cost/benefit basis. My major problem with Hash is is can cause long term psychological problems and damage your short-term memory. I lived with a guy for a year, spent two weeks drinking someone else's milk because he forgot he wasn't buying his own (he thought he was), and that was the whole in his short term meory from smoking Hash as a teen. Still sharp otherwise, but he's stuck with that handicap now.

Prince Cobra
06-08-2011, 21:11
Legalization won't help... unless they legalize all the drugs... There will always be something forbidden to attract more and more people, especially, if they have tasted something legal and "lighter". But if you legalize all the drugs... how would you take care of people who need to cope with a heroin addiction. Or simply wait for them to commit crime after robbing their parents to pay them some attention?

Viking
06-08-2011, 22:09
This is why I took back my original statement saying I guess it depends on the family. Don't try to portray me as defending alcoholism.

You were saying that in general/sum, alcohol was bringing families together. Saying that it depends on the family is not to retract that, it fits nicely with the idea.


But the interaction is not purely a physical one. The alcohol has created a bond between people that otherwise would not have formed. I'm not denying that people love to talk to other people, I am just saying that alcohol has helped that process more than anything else.

Let's see...one obvious way that a particular bond would not be formed, would be because the persons met in a pub, and without alcohol, the pub would not be there. Granted. This bond could then be replaced by another one instead, that is no problem.

The other way a bond would not form, is to say that without alcohol one of the persons would not be in mood to make contact - in one way or the other. That is a really suspiciously sounding statement. First of all, it sounds a bit like the socialisation could only occur when they are intoxicated - they won't go along otherwise. Secondly, it sounds a bit like alcohol could lead to dependency: let's say one of the persons is nervous when it comes to making contact with new people. He indulges some alcohol to overcome his nervousness. It works for him, so he is tempted to use alcohol again for this purpose. What he instead could have done, is to take the initiative without alcohol one time, and succeed. It could cure hime from his nervousness, and he would not "need" alcohol to initiate contact with other people.

In sum, it is hard to spot any necessity.


I hate most people. I need some alcohol in me before I start talking with idiots from the local kegger. Yes, humans are social, but alcohol amplifies it to a new level. Yes, you can make friends without alcohol, but you can make more, in an easier fashion when you do indulge in it with others. Some people do need to relax a bit before they cozy up with anyone. I am one of them.

As per above, by using in alcohol this way, you could simply be pushing the problems ahead of you. Humans adapt to their surroundings.



Respected? Forgive me, but from what I have read in this very forum, the idea of a unified Europe or any sort of co-dependence between European nations is very much not liked by more than a few Europeans. Does Greece respect Germany when they want bailouts without cutting back fiscally? Does the UK respect Germany when many UK citizens don't want to dive in and become part of the Euro/EU fold?

Nation's now respect Germany? Didn't wikileaks reveal that the US killed a German citizen by accident in a counter-terrorist operation and then told the German government to keep it under wraps?

Yes, more respected than what Nazi-Germany was - that was my point.


No, wars don't lead to any meaningful "peace". When wars are done, everyone holds hands to remember those that have died, then go about being nations again. WW2 simply shifted the power structure away from Germany towards other nations, and thus the super powers treated Germany less as a threat and more as a pawn. This isn't respect.

It is respect. They can treat each other more like equals now. The relationships between the relevant countries are better now, that is the point.




EDIT: The more I read your responses, the more I think they mean nothing. You list the consequences of alcohol abuse and then are asserting that that applies to a majority of households. This isn't true. Alcohol use is extremely high, almost everyone drinks alcohol at least on holiday's, and if the situation was even 15% what you put it as, then the reality would be much different than it is today.

Basically I have said this:
"Alcohol brings more people together than anything else."

You reply with this:
"But it also brings people apart."

That does not negate my statement.

Your assertion is that alcohol works as a positive force, and that it is good because it can act as tool of forming/strengthening social ties. Underlying this, however, is also both a perceived necessity as well as a positive total sum (for society) - and these two elements are what I have been contesting. You may not have said these things explicitly, but it is hard not to not interpret your posts this way.

I am not contesting that alcohol could have a positive effect in sum on many people. Not because I accept it as a fact, but because it is hard to analyse the subject with a casual approach.

Centurion1
06-09-2011, 00:48
What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.

That was so unnecessarily douchey. Your a moderator cant you express your disbelief with what he said without expressing yourself in that manner.

Also Frags ACIN your whole scenario is absolutely bizarre and ridiculous to debate about. Frags the cartels come rolling into america with armored vehicles!!!!!!!!!!!! I lol'ed. Then simply to humor it I thought about what Phillip Morris could do. They could if they wanted to buy something like Blackwater contractors and literally rape the drug cartels with experienced veteran fighters and high tech equipment.

So much fail in this thread.

jirisys
06-09-2011, 01:48
Yeah, like when alcohol was decriminalized, all the alcohol mafias that were there before were just the tip of the iceberg and tons of alcohol mafias sprung upon that moment when there was no more profit to be gained and too much to be lost.

Seriously, how are people giving the same dumb arguments 60 years later?

~Jirisys ()

Crazed Rabbit
06-09-2011, 01:52
Fragony, your whole scenario is simply ridiculous.

The only reason cartels are powerful is because drugs are expensive, and drugs are only expensive because they're rare, and they're only rare because they're illegal.

There are already lots of people growing pot in the US, and there have been for much longer than the cartels have existed.

And nothing you spoke of has happened.

You say it's better to not rock the boat - but you live on a different freaking continent. You aren't in the middle of a warzone fueled by illegal drug sales (since the cartels get so much money from buyers in the US, legalization here would cripple them in Mexico) or in a country with civil liberties under siege.

Plus none of what you warn about will come to pass.

CR

Slyspy
06-09-2011, 19:12
I would never claim to "know" about God, but thanks for the compliment anyway.

But, actually, I do know something about drugs and their effects on people. I come from a poor farming community and use of canabis and cocaine is 9or rather was) quite widespread. There were several men in their twenties who had heart attacks when I was a teenager, and I watched several friends descend into drug addiction, most of them are recovered now, but not all. Having said that, I also know alchoholics - fewer of those have recovered.

Here's the thing I don't understand, some of these drugs are much, much worse than alchohol. Also, "alchohol" is merely a component of many fine beverages, it isn't the point of them the way snorting cocaine on the back of a toilet is just about getting high; but the that doesn't extend to cheap manky cider designed to yet to smashed. I don't believe heroin should be legalisd, or cocaine, or meth, because taking them doesn't involve "risks", it's pretty much a sure thing. Meth will rot you from the inside out, as will Acid, Cocaine WILL knacker your heart at about four times the normal rate.

With Pot and things like LSD I am more ambivelant, given that most of the people I know who did Hash stopped more or less when they became legal adults I'm not convinced that legalising it is particularly worthwile on a cost/benefit basis. My major problem with Hash is is can cause long term psychological problems and damage your short-term memory. I lived with a guy for a year, spent two weeks drinking someone else's milk because he forgot he wasn't buying his own (he thought he was), and that was the whole in his short term meory from smoking Hash as a teen. Still sharp otherwise, but he's stuck with that handicap now.


The argument that drugs are worse than alcohol because some alcohol is in the form of "fine beverages" is laughable. If drugs of any type are illegal the so should alcohol. The abuse of any causes social problems. The argument I like is that if drugs are legalised then the "softer" types become more acceptable socially. "Harder" drugs will continue to be less socially acceptable because they are simply less social in nature. The abuse (and/or addiction to) any drug should be a health issue rather than a criminal issue IMO. Forgive me if this is a ramble, since I have been drinking (my drug of choice).

rory_20_uk
06-09-2011, 19:32
Cocaine is often considered a very "social" drug. The only one which isn't really is heroin as you're zonked... but even as I type people gather to drink vast quantities of ethanol, so why not gather for heroin?

If they were legal, better ways of delivery would quickly be found - a transdermal patch to keep you happy for the whole night out for example.

~:smoking:

Shibumi
06-09-2011, 19:42
Cocaine is often considered a very "social" drug. The only one which isn't really is heroin as you're zonked... but even as I type people gather to drink vast quantities of ethanol, so why not gather for heroin?

If they were legal, better ways of delivery would quickly be found - a transdermal patch to keep you happy for the whole night out for example.

~:smoking:

GIMME GIMME GIMME!!

You sir are my new hero.

jirisys
06-09-2011, 21:04
GIMME GIMME GIMME!!

You sir are my new hero.

Forget Cocaine, get MDMA!

~Jirisys ()

phonicsmonkey
06-10-2011, 01:22
This is a little something for those who may believe that by decriminalising certain substances you will not be increasing their use and thereby increasing addiction rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/us-drugs-oxycodone-painkillers-florida

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 05:13
The argument that drugs are worse than alcohol because some alcohol is in the form of "fine beverages" is laughable. If drugs of any type are illegal the so should alcohol. The abuse of any causes social problems. The argument I like is that if drugs are legalised then the "softer" types become more acceptable socially. "Harder" drugs will continue to be less socially acceptable because they are simply less social in nature. The abuse (and/or addiction to) any drug should be a health issue rather than a criminal issue IMO. Forgive me if this is a ramble, since I have been drinking (my drug of choice).

The procees by which beer is brewed produces alchohol, it is ultimately a side product of sterilising water to make it both drinkable and palatable.

Snorting something or sticking a neadle in you arm or snorting something up your nose is entirely different

drone
06-10-2011, 06:00
The procees by which beer is brewed produces alchohol, it is ultimately a side product of sterilising water to make it both drinkable and palatable.

Snorting something or sticking a neadle in you arm or snorting something up your nose is entirely different
For beer and wine, yes. How does distillation fit into the equation though?

Fragony
06-10-2011, 11:17
Fragony, the legalization, and more importantly taxation, would eliminate the cartel's power and influence. Nothing gets a government's ire up more than the non-payment of revenue. The cartels wouldn't stand a chance.

You don't have their budget, how would they not have a chance. You can't hurt them without cutting youself in a most painful way, Columia has been fighting the FARC for how long, and well Mexico. Why go any further than decriminalising the end of the foodchain. Keep it in Mexico.

@all who make fun of armoured vehicles, try google

Also, how do you intend to outprice them if you want to tax it?

a completely inoffensive name
06-10-2011, 12:49
You were saying that in general/sum, alcohol was bringing families together. Saying that it depends on the family is not to retract that, it fits nicely with the idea.
Alright then. Noted.



Let's see...one obvious way that a particular bond would not be formed, would be because the persons met in a pub, and without alcohol, the pub would not be there. Granted. This bond could then be replaced by another one instead, that is no problem.
But what guarantee is there that the bond would be replaced? What if the only thing that two people have in common is that they love their gin and tonic and they find each other both drinking it on a Tuesday afternoon at their local pub and start talking? If there is no gin and tonic, are they both going to the bowling alley?



The other way a bond would not form, is to say that without alcohol one of the persons would not be in mood to make contact - in one way or the other. That is a really suspiciously sounding statement. First of all, it sounds a bit like the socialisation could only occur when they are intoxicated - they won't go along otherwise. Secondly, it sounds a bit like alcohol could lead to dependency: let's say one of the persons is nervous when it comes to making contact with new people. He indulges some alcohol to overcome his nervousness. It works for him, so he is tempted to use alcohol again for this purpose. What he instead could have done, is to take the initiative without alcohol one time, and succeed. It could cure hime from his nervousness, and he would not "need" alcohol to initiate contact with other people.
Yes, there are quite a few people who are dependent on alcohol to carry them into socialization land. They are sad cases but they exist nonetheless.



In sum, it is hard to spot any necessity.
From your perspective yes. But in the mind of someone who has been a hermit all his life, never going outside to parties or hanging out with large groups of people, the only way they might mentally break themselves out of their shell is by reasoning that the alcohol might make them a different, perhaps cooler person. Otherwise they might just psych themselves out mentally to do anything sober.



As per above, by using in alcohol this way, you could simply be pushing the problems ahead of you. Humans adapt to their surroundings.
This has a good chance of being true. But it probably depends on the individual and I guess in retrospect neither mine nor your conjecture should be applied sweepingly across all people. Some people might need it, some might not. I know a few in both categories.



Yes, more respected than what Nazi-Germany was - that was my point.
Alright, I will concede that Germany is more respected than when it was run by Nazi's.



It is respect. They can treat each other more like equals now. The relationships between the relevant countries are better now, that is the point.

I disagree there. Just because they can't stop their feet on each other due to the US being the super power nowadays, does not mean it is real respect. It is artificial respect that is dependent on some external factor, the wealth/military strength of the nations. Respect for someone else is not dependent on whether or not they have something you want or if they can beat you up, it stems from an understanding of someone else's character and judging it to be correct with your own views. I don't respect the bully that could beat me up in 4th grade even though I was completely kind to him so he wouldn't steal my Snack-Pack. I don't see how wars create an understanding of some other nation through bombing it.




Your assertion is that alcohol works as a positive force, and that it is good because it can act as tool of forming/strengthening social ties. Underlying this, however, is also both a perceived necessity as well as a positive total sum (for society) - and these two elements are what I have been contesting. You may not have said these things explicitly, but it is hard not to not interpret your posts this way.

I am not contesting that alcohol could have a positive effect in sum on many people. Not because I accept it as a fact, but because it is hard to analyse the subject with a casual approach.

I guess I should clarify that it is not completely necessary for alcohol to enter the social equation here. But I do think that may, may people find it necessary themselves. I do think that it still has a net positive effect for various reasons that I can't put out as facts (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).

And yes, I agree with your last statement, this is very hard to just glance over from a single perspective and try to make sense of it all. The sociologist's will crack this one open for us.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 13:07
For beer and wine, yes. How does distillation fit into the equation though?

It doesn't really, except as an exploration of an existing type of intoxicant. One can argue that fine wisky is a pleasure quite aside from it's intoxicating effect but clearly a greater level of intoxication is intended.

Changing tack though, caffine is is coffee and tea, but lots of people drink them for the pleasure of the taste, even though caffine is more addictive than alchohol.

I'm not saying "ban ALL drugs" or even that all the currently illegal drugs should be illegal, but Ice's desire to "legalise everything" is wrongheaded, it stems from the assumption that people should be able to do whatever they want, "so long as they don't hurt anyone else". That completely ignore the effect that addiction has on the family of the addict, even if the addict doesn't turn to crime.

Ultimately, there is no harm you can do to yourself that does not affect your family and your comunity. Demanding the legalisation of all drugs just so you can walk down the street smoking a spliff is selfishness, not Libertarianism.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 13:09
Also, how do you intend to outprice them if you want to tax it?

Ah, Frags has you there. Look at the millions upon millions of illegal cigarettes that support organised crime in the West.

TheLastDays
06-10-2011, 13:18
(for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).


Now at first I didn't want to join this discussion as it's slightly OT and I'm not so sure on where to place my "vote" here anyway but this statement does deserve some thought.

My question is:
How many socializing college parties (that could happen without alcohol, not in the same extent though, I agree on that) is one beat up wife worth?

Now, I don't really believe there is more socializing college parties than angry, violent husbands because of alcohol but just for the sake of the argument let's assume the "socializing party:domestic abuse"-ratio is 3:1

Okay, now let's assume without the alcohol 2 out of 3 parties wouldn't happen, or there is a general loss of two thirds of "effectiveness" for the socializing parties.

So you'd lose "2 parties" for every wife that doesn't land in hospital - I'd take that deal...

Idaho
06-10-2011, 13:28
This debate never fails to produce some of the worst types of justifications for the status quo.

The questions are:

1 - Does criminalisation reduce drug use in society?
2 - Is the criminalisation/legalisation of drugs in our society based on a rational understanding of the evidence/damage of particular drugs?
3 - Is criminalising drug users effective in reducing their drug use?
4 - Does criminalisation of drugs reduce aquisitive crime?
5 - Should it be up to the state to decide in which way people get high?

I don't see how anyone can argue a yes to any of these.

As for PVC's claiming that booze is noble and all about taste, and all other drugs are just about getting high - that's just socialisation. But seeing as he is perhaps the most conservative person on the board, it's useful to have him setting up these straw men.

Idaho
06-10-2011, 13:29
Ok - bonus round.

Name two drugs where the withdrawl can actually kill you.

a completely inoffensive name
06-10-2011, 13:35
Now at first I didn't want to join this discussion as it's slightly OT and I'm not so sure on where to place my "vote" here anyway but this statement does deserve some thought.

My question is:
How many socializing college parties (that could happen without alcohol, not in the same extent though, I agree on that) is one beat up wife worth?

Now, I don't really believe there is more socializing college parties than angry, violent husbands because of alcohol but just for the sake of the argument let's assume the "socializing party:domestic abuse"-ratio is 3:1

Okay, now let's assume without the alcohol 2 out of 3 parties wouldn't happen, or there is a general loss of two thirds of "effectiveness" for the socializing parties.

So you'd lose "2 parties" for every wife that doesn't land in hospital - I'd take that deal...

I agree with you, but I don't know how to quantize pleasure and pain in a form able to be categorized and compared as a raw number of some sort, so the reasoning is up in the air for me.

How many beaten wives do we save by banning alcohol again? Idk. How many Al Capones running amok is one beat up wife worth? A thousand? Ten thousand? Maybe there are 100,000 women being beaten right now due to alcoholic husbands. These are all difficult questions that don't seem to have a definitive answer.

TheLastDays
06-10-2011, 13:37
You are of course right and I am not advocating to make alcohol illegal as it wouldn't help at all... I'm just saying, the assumption that the positive effects of alcohol outweigh the negative ones is one that I can't easily make, especially when I can live without the positive effects and the negative effects are dramatic.

a completely inoffensive name
06-10-2011, 13:41
You are of course right and I am not advocating to make alcohol illegal as it wouldn't help at all... I'm just saying, the assumption that the positive effects of alcohol outweigh the negative ones is one that I can't easily make, especially when I can live without the positive effects and the negative effects are dramatic.

I think the positive effects of alcohol are more subtle and do indeed effect us all. Deals of all kind, from Wall Street dealings to Hollywood pitches could be done somewhere over a drink. The socializing effect of it might be what tips the balance in favor of a manufacturer agreeing to produce the new iphone for a cheaper price or a production company making the next blockbuster movie.

EDIT: Eh, I hate that example. Makes it seem like Wall Street and Hollywood isn't about the bottom line 100% of the time.

Like I said, I don't fully believe that it has a net positive effect, but I feel as if it is so ubiquitous that the probabilities in my head churn out a result resulting in a net positive.

Fragony
06-10-2011, 13:42
Ok - bonus round.

Name two drugs where the withdrawl can actually kill you.

Know only one, GHB. If you do other drugs everyday your body just tries to keep up. GHB is nasty though, you can die of poisening as GHB is a drug you use naturally every day as it's build by your own body, body counters when it's suddenly gone. Other than that, no idea

Idaho
06-10-2011, 13:45
Know only one, GHB. The addiction is mental really. If you do it everyday your body just tries to keep up. GHB is nasty though, you can die of poisening as GHB is a drug you use naturally every day as it's build by your own body, body counters when it's suddenly gone. Other than that, no idea

GHB can be deadly to withdraw. I was actually thinking of another drug whose withdrawl kills for exactly the same reason. So much so that GHB is used to treat it's withdrawal.

Fragony
06-10-2011, 13:53
GHB can be deadly to withdraw. I was actually thinking of another drug whose withdrawl kills for exactly the same reason. So much so that GHB is used to treat it's withdrawal.

Being? If you say cocaine I'm going to cry, most harmless drugs ever

Idaho
06-10-2011, 14:56
No, not cocaine. Cocaine is certainly not harmless, but it's not potentially lethal to withdraw from.

Idaho
06-10-2011, 14:59
And now for some unwelcome so-called "science", from those wacked out hippies at the Lancet:

http://download.thelancet.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673610614626.gr4.lrg.jpg

TheLastDays
06-10-2011, 15:07
I think the positive effects of alcohol are more subtle and do indeed effect us all. Deals of all kind, from Wall Street dealings to Hollywood pitches could be done somewhere over a drink. The socializing effect of it might be what tips the balance in favor of a manufacturer agreeing to produce the new iphone for a cheaper price or a production company making the next blockbuster movie.

EDIT: Eh, I hate that example. Makes it seem like Wall Street and Hollywood isn't about the bottom line 100% of the time.

Like I said, I don't fully believe that it has a net positive effect, but I feel as if it is so ubiquitous that the probabilities in my head churn out a result resulting in a net positive.

Well the thing is, for me to see a net positive, the positive effects have to be of the same magnitude not only more numerous than the negative effects.

E.G. if it kills people then for a net positive it has to save (more) people from dying.
If it harms people it needs to save (more) people from being harmed or save some from dying...
etc. you get the idea...

So if some people die because of alcohol (which they do, without alcohol there would be less lethal car accidents for example, that's a fact or at least a very plausible possibility that is nearly a fact) and some get hurt (which is also as much a fact as the first statement, because some people do violent things they wouldn't do if they didn't drink alcohol) then alcohol has to save people from death in at least as numerous cases and if it did we'd have a net of zero... for a positive it had to save more people or, because I'm generous, show some other positive effect after we've reached zero... I hope you get what I mean

So, imo banishing alcohol, making it illegal would make things worse but if I had the means to make alcohol vanish from the world to never return I would probably do it...

EDIT: and just to clarify: I drink alcohol from time to time, there are some alcoholic beverages that I enjoy but I could swar an oath that I never got drunk but the problem is that some people cannot control their urge for this substance and thus they hurt/kill themselves and others and that just outweighs the benefit of me enjoying a drink. I can live without it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 16:30
This debate never fails to produce some of the worst types of justifications for the status quo.

The questions are:

1 - Does criminalisation reduce drug use in society?
2 - Is the criminalisation/legalisation of drugs in our society based on a rational understanding of the evidence/damage of particular drugs?
3 - Is criminalising drug users effective in reducing their drug use?
4 - Does criminalisation of drugs reduce aquisitive crime?
5 - Should it be up to the state to decide in which way people get high?

I don't see how anyone can argue a yes to any of these.

As for PVC's claiming that booze is noble and all about taste, and all other drugs are just about getting high - that's just socialisation. But seeing as he is perhaps the most conservative person on the board, it's useful to have him setting up these straw men.

I didn't say it was "noble", I said that alchohol content is somewhat coincidental in things like wine and beer, in the same way Caffine is coincidental in Tea, and coffee.


And now for some unwelcome so-called "science", from those wacked out hippies at the Lancet:

http://download.thelancet.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673610614626.gr4.lrg.jpg

Now who's using strawmen?

Alchohol is the most widely used drug by a huge margin, so it is utterly unremarkable that is is the most abused as well. If you want to ban it though, go ahead.

I am not that bothered, I'll miss Otter Head but I'll live.

Ice
06-10-2011, 16:36
Anyone find it funny that crack cocaine was introduced because dealers could make more money freebasing cocaine and selling it then just selling it pure? The prohibition of cocaine introduced and made popular a drug that was twice as bad as the original.

Idaho
06-10-2011, 16:39
I didn't say it was "noble", I said that alchohol content is somewhat coincidental in things like wine and beer, in the same way Caffine is coincidental in Tea, and coffee.

Nonsense is it coincidental. How many people say that they 'can't function' until the first cup of the morning. Neither is it coincidental with alcohol. You need to persevere to aquire a taste for it.



Now who's using strawmen?

Alchohol is the most widely used drug by a huge margin, so it is utterly unremarkable that is is the most abused as well. If you want to ban it though, go ahead.

I am not that bothered, I'll miss Otter Head but I'll live.

:laugh4: You think they haven't taken that into account? You are daft sometimes :) I don't want to ban anything. I think it's pointless. If people want to get high, then I don't see any point waging a moral campaign to stop them. Fill your boots.

Idaho
06-10-2011, 16:45
Drug-related deaths in England and Wales 2000 to 2004

Cocaine 575
Amphetamine 384
Ecstasy 227
Solvents 246
Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 4,976
Alcohol 25,000 - 200,000 approx.
Tobacco half a million approx

Source (http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-many-people-die-from-drugs)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 16:53
:laugh4: You think they haven't taken that into account? You are daft sometimes :) I don't want to ban anything. I think it's pointless. If people want to get high, then I don't see any point waging a moral campaign to stop them. Fill your boots.

No, I don't believe they have. The simple reason being that if they had the net economic cost for heroin would be higher. Those stats obviously aren't weighted against usage per capita, if you want to prove that alchohol it more damaging, show me stats for deather per 1,000 users against heroin.

I'd wager those numbers would change significantly. That being so, you have to demonstrate that legalisation would not increase use.

Ice
06-10-2011, 17:08
No, I don't believe they have. The simple reason being that if they had the net economic cost for heroin would be higher. Those stats obviously aren't weighted against usage per capita, if you want to prove that alchohol it more damaging, show me stats for deather per 1,000 users against heroin.

I'd wager those numbers would change significantly. That being so, you have to demonstrate that legalisation would not increase use.

I know I said I was done, but obviously I lied. The burden of proof is on YOU. That being so, you have to demonstrate that prohibition is actually decreasing use.

drone
06-10-2011, 17:37
You don't have their budget, how would they not have a chance. You can't hurt them without cutting youself in a most painful way, Columia has been fighting the FARC for how long, and well Mexico. Why go any further than decriminalising the end of the foodchain. Keep it in Mexico.
They won't have a budget if their customers have a cheaper, legal way to purchase better quality drugs.


Also, how do you intend to outprice them if you want to tax it?
The cost to manufacture and distribute through proper channels, when legalized, will undercut the costs of the smugglers. Rory probably knows better than I, but most illicit drugs can be manufactured quite cheaply. The UK ran a program for legalized heroin distribution to addicts years back, you can probably get the numbers from there. I'm not googling for smack info from work though. :hide:

Deaths from drugs legalized would drop, for several reasons. Proper dosage information, no harmful additives to cut the product, and an overall safer environment to partake will make a difference, even if more people start using.


It doesn't really, except as an exploration of an existing type of intoxicant. One can argue that fine wisky is a pleasure quite aside from it's intoxicating effect but clearly a greater level of intoxication is intended.
Distilled spirits is to beer what cocaine is to coca leaves. A more refined, concentrated version, that's all.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 20:04
I know I said I was done, but obviously I lied. The burden of proof is on YOU. That being so, you have to demonstrate that prohibition is actually decreasing use.

No it isn't, current law and the status quo are on my side. If you want to change the law you have to make a case, otherwise the law stands.

If anything, the stats Idaho posted argue against legalisation, as alchohol is the most destructive currently, because it is most widely used, being both legal and readily available.

The question is not whether prohibition is "decreasing" use because prohibition is the status quo, so we would expect use to remain constant, and actually rise in line with population growth. The question is whether use will increase with legalisation and what effect this would have on society. Given that legal drugs are far more widely used than illegal ones it's safe to assume there would be some increase, and given that a lot of these drugs have much stronger effects on the body in smaller physical doses it's fair to say increase in use of, say, Crack or Heroin would be a bad thing with absolutely no discernable upside.

Ice
06-10-2011, 20:37
No it isn't, current law and the status quo are on my side. If you want to change the law you have to make a case, otherwise the law stands.

I could care less about current law and status quo as I'm not trying to lobby Congress to change the law through this message board. We are having a therotical debate about drug legalization. Just because there is a law saying drugs are illegal, doesn't make it correct nor the best idea about how to deal with our current situation

Prohibition isn't natural and hasn't been around that long. For centuries, the vast majority of drugs were completely legal. Why all of a sudden are they illegal? Has this new chapter in history reduced use and benefited society? Well?


The question is not whether prohibition is "decreasing" use because prohibition is the status quo, so we would expect use to remain constant, and actually rise in line with population growth.

Constant per capita


The question is whether use will increase with legalisation and what effect this would have on society.


No it isn't. Like I said, prohibition is not the natural state of things.



Given that legal drugs are far more widely used than illegal ones it's safe to assume there would be some increase

I wholeheardly disagree;society is smart enough to know the dangers of many current illegal drugs. People often will be too afraid to touch these substances. People who won't be won't care if they are illegal.


, and given that a lot of these drugs have much stronger effects on the body in smaller physical doses it's fair to say increase in use of, say, Crack or Heroin would be a bad thing with absolutely no discernable upside.

Like I said, I don't see an increase in use. You seem to ignored my earlier post about Portgual legalizing small amounts of heroin and the heroin use rates dropping by nearly 50% over 10 years. Can you actually provide statistics to support your argument? From the report I listed earlier, it seems you are wrong.

As for upsides, there are plenty. Addicts can now be open about their addiction and seek treatment without fear of landing in jail, families would not be broken up do a parent's/sibling's drug problem, we would save BILLIONS of dollars on a now futile attempt to stop the supply of drugs, etc to name a few.





If anything, the stats Idaho posted argue against legalisation, as alchohol is the most destructive currently, because it is most widely used, being both legal and readily available.

It doesn't argue against legaliztion. The portion of the graph that is made by crime, would increase drastically if illegal. You want proof? See the 1930s in the United States.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 21:00
Take another look at Idaho's graph, alchohol scroes big on "injury" and "economic cost", look at some of the other factors - the eighting has been set in quite a specific way, mortality is obviously weighted quite low, and secondary social factors are weighted relatively high. If you gave a higher priority to dependence and drug-related physical and mental damage of the user you would get a different ranking.

I remember this study, it was undertaked to support decriminalisation, the graph is a result of the researcher's interpretations of the stats. A different but equally valid interpretation of those stats could produce different results.

As far as "prohibition isn't natural and hasn't been around that long", I strongly suggest you read your history. Most societies have restricted substances and practices, always with a social objective in mind.

Ice
06-10-2011, 21:15
Take another look at Idaho's graph, alchohol scroes big on "injury" and "economic cost", look at some of the other factors - the eighting has been set in quite a specific way, mortality is obviously weighted quite low, and secondary social factors are weighted relatively high. If you gave a higher priority to dependence and drug-related physical and mental damage of the user you would get a different ranking.

I remember this study, it was undertaked to support decriminalisation, the graph is a result of the researcher's interpretations of the stats. A different but equally valid interpretation of those stats could produce different results.

I don't follow. What does this have to do with the issue about crime I just spoke about?


As far as "prohibition isn't natural and hasn't been around that long", I strongly suggest you read your history. Most societies have restricted substances and practices, always with a social objective in mind.

Most societies? Really? Are you willing to show me over 50% of societies that have existed supported drug prohibition?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 21:28
I don't follow. What does this have to do with the issue about crime I just spoke about?

It has to do with the issue of "social harm", I already covered the crime issue when I pointed to the black market in cigarrettes - if currently illegal drugs were made legal the black market would still undercut them and nothing would change, except dealers would be able to claim personal use on any amount and it would be harder to prosecute them.



Most societies? Really? Are you willing to show me over 50% of societies that have existed supported drug prohibition?

Most societies with legal codes, certainly. The Christian West pretty much always had Hash and Opiates on the no-no list (next time someone tells you medieval doctors had no form of anasthetic, give them a slap), and Islam proscribed alchohol. That's 100% of the Old World for most of the last thousand years or so. I'm sure if I looked I'd find the Greeks or Romans banning mushrooms or something similar, hell Homer put the evils of substance abuse into the Odyssey.

Ice
06-10-2011, 21:57
It has to do with the issue of "social harm", I already covered the crime issue when I pointed to the black market in cigarrettes - if currently illegal drugs were made legal the black market would still undercut them and nothing would change, except dealers would be able to claim personal use on any amount and it would be harder to prosecute them.

No you didn't. I assume you are referring to this quote(?):


Ah, Frags has you there. Look at the millions upon millions of illegal cigarettes that support organised crime in the West.

These kind of "enterprises" thrive usually due to theft and/or selling the product in a location that has extremely high taxes compared to cheaper jurisdictions. The former is not a matter of prohibition and the latter can solved by lowering taxes or colluding with the low tax jurisdiction to make sure the product is available at the same price everywhere. When prices hover around equilibrium, one can conclude that the buyer will prefer the safer and less shady method. Even with the current problems with the black market dealing with tobacco, how much money would these people be making if tobacco was totally illegal and they had a 100% share of the market?



Most societies with legal codes, certainly. The Christian West pretty much always had Hash and Opiates on the no-no list (next time someone tells you medieval doctors had no form of anasthetic, give them a slap)

Please show me.


and Islam proscribed alchohol.

Depending on the ruler/kingdom, this varied.


That's 100% of the Old World for most of the last thousand years or so.

Wow really? What about the Americas, Africa, and most of Asia? Furthermore, generalizing many groups of people over vast amounts of time isn't very convincing at all. Individual societies varied to a great extent. If you look to the more recent past, opium, cocaine, tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis were widely accepted and use all over the world.


I'm sure if I looked I'd find the Greeks or Romans banning mushrooms or something similar, hell Homer put the evils of substance abuse into the Odyssey.

Knowing the downsides to drugs and outright banning them/enforcing the ban are two different things.

Idaho
06-10-2011, 22:11
I'd wager those numbers would change significantly. That being so, you have to demonstrate that legalisation would not increase use.

Well that's a challenge that's fairly easy to meet.

Situation #1

UK - maximum sentence for possession of cannabis = 5 years
Netherlands - Cannabis available from 'licenced' cafe round the corner
Spain - small amounts legal to possess, next to the worlds largest producer of cannabis resin

Q. Which has the highest use per capita of cannabis?

Situation #2

America 1900 - 1920 (Legal Alcohol)
America 1920 - 1935 (Illegal Alcohol)
America 1935 - 1945 (Legal Alcohol)

Q. Which of these periods saw the highest levels of alcohol consumption?


Situation #3 was going to be about the relative levels of heroin use, and increases in usage in Britain under a heroin prescription regime in the 1960s, and now. And also about the same approach in reverse in Switzerland (they now prescribe, when previously they didn't). I know the data well enough to quote off the top of my head. From memory the evidence all pointed to prohibition increasing use.

Shibumi
06-10-2011, 23:01
Well that's a challenge that's fairly easy to meet.

Situation #1

UK - maximum sentence for possession of cannabis = 5 years
Netherlands - Cannabis available from 'licenced' cafe round the corner
Spain - small amounts legal to possess, next to the worlds largest producer of cannabis resin

Q. Which has the highest use per capita of cannabis?

Situation #2

America 1900 - 1920 (Legal Alcohol)
America 1920 - 1935 (Illegal Alcohol)
America 1935 - 1945 (Legal Alcohol)

Q. Which of these periods saw the highest levels of alcohol consumption?


Situation #3 was going to be about the relative levels of heroin use, and increases in usage in Britain under a heroin prescription regime in the 1960s, and now. And also about the same approach in reverse in Switzerland (they now prescribe, when previously they didn't). I know the data well enough to quote off the top of my head. From memory the evidence all pointed to prohibition increasing use.

It is not fair to befuddle spotless minds with information!

Fragony
06-10-2011, 23:14
@Drone these facilities will have to be build first. You need permits first and probably a politician or two. construction workers etc. All of these affeliated can be terrorised and that will happen if you grow on these scales. And again why would you want to anyway there is just no good reason to do it.

@Idaho, answer is the country with the highest amount of binge drinking and teenage pregnancy. There just happens to be something deeply pessimistic there

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 23:19
Well that's a challenge that's fairly easy to meet.

Situation #1

UK - maximum sentence for possession of cannabis = 5 years
Netherlands - Cannabis available from 'licenced' cafe round the corner
Spain - small amounts legal to possess, next to the worlds largest producer of cannabis resin

Q. Which has the highest use per capita of cannabis?

Situation #2

America 1900 - 1920 (Legal Alcohol)
America 1920 - 1935 (Illegal Alcohol)
America 1935 - 1945 (Legal Alcohol)

Q. Which of these periods saw the highest levels of alcohol consumption?


Situation #3 was going to be about the relative levels of heroin use, and increases in usage in Britain under a heroin prescription regime in the 1960s, and now. And also about the same approach in reverse in Switzerland (they now prescribe, when previously they didn't). I know the data well enough to quote off the top of my head. From memory the evidence all pointed to prohibition increasing use.

Actual statistics would be more impressive than rhetorical questions. Though, in nswer to #1 I would note that the Netherlands has, I believe, quite a lot of Hash tourism which causes it's own problems. Hasn't there been a recent re-evalution of a lot of Duth Liberalism in view of increasing problems their relaxed stance has caused?

In any case, the UK has endemic social problems, including large rural and urban underclasses living in poverty, falling job prospects, an economy which offers few opertunities to the unacademic and an unravelling social structure.... that makes it a poor comparison to countries like Switzerland in particular where the polity is relatively healthy.

Fragony
06-10-2011, 23:27
Actual statistics would be more impressive than rhetorical questions. Though, in nswer to #1 I would note that the Netherlands has, I believe, quite a lot of Hash tourism which causes it's own problems. Hasn't there been a recent re-evalution of a lot of Duth Liberalism in view of increasing problems their relaxed stance has caused?

In any case, the UK has endemic social problems, including large rural and urban underclasses living in poverty, falling job prospects, an economy which offers few opertunities to the unacademic and an unravelling social structure.... that makes it a poor comparison to countries like Switzerland in particular where the polity is relatively healthy.

We have the lowest cannabis use in Europe in fact

Idaho
06-10-2011, 23:31
Actual statistics would be more impressive than rhetorical questions. Though, in nswer to #1 I would note that the Netherlands has, I believe, quite a lot of Hash tourism which causes it's own problems. Hasn't there been a recent re-evalution of a lot of Duth Liberalism in view of increasing problems their relaxed stance has caused?

Tourist problems? It's one of Amsterdam's tourism drivers. The right ocassionally mutter about it, but there is no appetite whatsoever in the Netherlands to go to a full scale UK style prohibition. Having been in the city on a work trip last month, have smiling stoned tourists pottering around chatting and friendly is a hell of a lot more pleasant to experience than going through groups of drunk tourists. The Costa Del Sol and the Greek islands have the problem drug tourists - and it's British people on alcohol.


In any case, the UK has endemic social problems, including large rural and urban underclasses living in poverty, falling job prospects, an economy which offers few opertunities to the unacademic and an unravelling social structure.... that makes it a poor comparison to countries like Switzerland in particular where the polity is relatively healthy.

Oh dear PVC. Now you are saying that we aren't socialist enough like Switzerland and the Netherlands! You need to stop thinking so much. You might accidentally come to these wrong conclusions ;)

Idaho
06-10-2011, 23:37
We still haven't had the answer to the two popular drugs that can kill you from withdrawal...

Fragony
06-10-2011, 23:52
We still haven't had the answer to the two popular drugs that can kill you from withdrawal...

At least credit me for getting one. Let me guess the other is alcohol

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2011, 23:54
Tourist problems? It's one of Amsterdam's tourism drivers. The right ocassionally mutter about it, but there is no appetite whatsoever in the Netherlands to go to a full scale UK style prohibition. Having been in the city on a work trip last month, have smiling stoned tourists pottering around chatting and friendly is a hell of a lot more pleasant to experience than going through groups of drunk tourists. The Costa Del Sol and the Greek islands have the problem drug tourists - and it's British people on alcohol.

Oh dear PVC. Now you are saying that we aren't socialist enough like Switzerland and the Netherlands! You need to stop thinking so much. You might accidentally come to these wrong conclusions ;)

Switzerland isn't "Socialist" in the way UK Socialists think though, is it? You know full well that the Swiss (and Scandanavian) systems rely on a largely homogenous polity to function, Sweden is now suffering because immigration has upset the country's equalibrium to the extent that the Socialists are well and truly out. Once you have a reasonable functional polity you can start giving your citizens a greater level of support, but the UK idea of "Socialism" where central government throws money at the periphary is waste. End.


We still haven't had the answer to the two popular drugs that can kill you from withdrawal...

Well, the other one's alchohol, isn't it. Sheesh, did someone actually have to say that? You have to drink heroic quantities to get to that point though.

Viking
06-11-2011, 11:55
But what guarantee is there that the bond would be replaced? What if the only thing that two people have in common is that they love their gin and tonic and they find each other both drinking it on a Tuesday afternoon at their local pub and start talking? If there is no gin and tonic, are they both going to the bowling alley?

Replaced = different person. Who you're making friends with seems irrelevant at this point.


From your perspective yes. But in the mind of someone who has been a hermit all his life, never going outside to parties or hanging out with large groups of people, the only way they might mentally break themselves out of their shell is by reasoning that the alcohol might make them a different, perhaps cooler person. Otherwise they might just psych themselves out mentally to do anything sober.


This has a good chance of being true. But it probably depends on the individual and I guess in retrospect neither mine nor your conjecture should be applied sweepingly across all people. Some people might need it, some might not. I know a few in both categories.

Then we'll say that we disagree.



I guess I should clarify that it is not completely necessary for alcohol to enter the social equation here. But I do think that may, may people find it necessary themselves. I do think that it still has a net positive effect for various reasons that I can't put out as facts (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).

What I am having in mind here, is a world where alcohol does not exist (never has, never will). Being the social creatures that humans are, they would still very much like to gather, like in the form of parties. The key here is that you cannot simply credit alcohol for things that happen when people are intoxicated. It would all happen - and does happen - without any form of intoxication. Some of the downsides, however, would not happen without alcohol; such as alcoholics, of course, but perhaps also DWI (that would of course depend on whether one would allow different sorts of drugs to exist in the thought experiment, and other things).

Rather than focusing solely on the negative effects of alchol, I don't think that alcohol actually contributes to much good. It is more of an icing on the cake where it works positively.

Centurion1
06-11-2011, 16:42
And now for some unwelcome so-called "science", from those wacked out hippies at the Lancet:

http://download.thelancet.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673610614626.gr4.lrg.jpg

Lets take out economic cost, community, and family adversities (if that means what i imagine it to mean which is how opposed they are to the users habit). These are all non factors to me. Economic cost alone is a huge chunk of alcohol. Looking at the graph as it is anyway you can see that heroin and crack are far more deadly drugs than any others except for tobacco which is a unique case really.

Also look at the dependence numbers............... something is definitely far off on this graph. Your telling me it is easier to withdraw from things like meth and heroin than it is from tobacco? I'm sorry I know all the extensive propaganda regarding tobacco but come on thats ridiculous they dont have people going to rehab for cigarettes people go cold turkey all the time.

drone
06-11-2011, 17:16
Also look at the dependence numbers............... something is definitely far off on this graph. Your telling me it is easier to withdraw from things like meth and heroin than it is from tobacco? I'm sorry I know all the extensive propaganda regarding tobacco but come on thats ridiculous they dont have people going to rehab for cigarettes people go cold turkey all the time.
I don't think the graph is discussing withdrawal, only addiction/recidivism rates. The withdrawal from heroin is definitely more difficult, but once off the drug fewer go back than smokers. The recidivism rate for nicotine is insanely high.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-11-2011, 21:19
I don't think the graph is discussing withdrawal, only addiction/recidivism rates. The withdrawal from heroin is definitely more difficult, but once off the drug fewer go back than smokers. The recidivism rate for nicotine is insanely high.

What about "injury", that's very high for Alchohol as well, despite the fact that most drunken injuries are relativel minor, how about the things you can do by botching an injection, or is that shunted to a different catagory.

You can just go on picking it apart.

Idaho
06-11-2011, 21:20
Well, the other one's alchohol, isn't it. Sheesh, did someone actually have to say that? You have to drink heroic quantities to get to that point though.

The answer is alcohol and valium. Both legal, and positively encouraged by society.

How long do you have to smoke cannabis or take ecstasy before they can give you a deadly withdrawal?

Idaho
06-11-2011, 21:23
... how about the things you can do by botching an injection, or is that shunted to a different catagory.

You can just go on picking it apart.

And yet you do all the time. Cherry pick examples that turn round and bite you, then change topic. For example the damage heroin addicts do to themselves using poor injection techniques or poor equipment.

Heroin is relatively benign as a long term habit if managed properly. You can be a 20 year heroin addict, quit and then be fairly healthy. A 20 year booze habit and you're pretty much done for.

Centurion1
06-11-2011, 22:02
I don't think the graph is discussing withdrawal, only addiction/recidivism rates. The withdrawal from heroin is definitely more difficult, but once off the drug fewer go back than smokers. The recidivism rate for nicotine is insanely high.

So what. Heroin is also illegal and much harder to obtain. Obtaining nicotine is laughably easy. So of course it's recidivism rate is much worse.

Shibumi
06-11-2011, 23:00
So what. Heroin is also illegal and much harder to obtain. Obtaining nicotine is laughably easy. So of course it's recidivism rate is much worse.

Your statements at large have seem a bit uninformed. Heroin is rather easy to get a hold of, and if you are into it you will know several sources. You are right that it is harder to obtain than nicotine, but your point fails as it is easy enough to get a hold of for it not to be a factor.

I even heard people make money out of supplying it!

Centurion1
06-11-2011, 23:05
People make money out of supplying rare works of art too Hawking. I guess because people make money supplying it they have no trouble obtaining it.

I believe my statement was, "So what. Heroin is also illegal and much harder to obtain. Obtaining nicotine is laughably easy. So of course it's recidivism rate is much worse."

All that says to me oh mighty Scandinavian overlord is that heroin is illegal and harder to obtain than nicotine. Also your far from the truth. Heroin is not "easy to get a hold of" even if you live in some God forsaken place that grows poppies.

Shibumi
06-11-2011, 23:14
People make money out of supplying rare works of art too Hawking. I guess because people make money supplying it they have no trouble obtaining it.

I believe my statement was, "So what. Heroin is also illegal and much harder to obtain. Obtaining nicotine is laughably easy. So of course it's recidivism rate is much worse."

All that says to me oh mighty Scandinavian overlord is that heroin is illegal and harder to obtain than nicotine. Also your far from the truth. Heroin is not "easy to get a hold of" even if you live in some God forsaken place that grows poppies.

Living in a big city as I do, I could probably buy heroin about as quick as it would take me to get a hold of smokes (it is past midnight and stores are thus closed, heroin market are not bound by the same rules though). I can assure you heroin is easy to get a hold of, American underling (!?).

I got what you said, but my point remains. Heroine is easy enough to get a hold of that it will not be a factor for recidivism rates. I could get it in, say, 15 minutes. Someone into the whole thing could most likely get it more easily.

a completely inoffensive name
06-12-2011, 01:26
Replaced = different person. Who you're making friends with seems irrelevant at this point.
Ahh I see. But it seems you are coming from a fact of "humans are social, so they will make friends no matter what". I find that line of thinking flawed.



Then we'll say that we disagree.
Agreed. :D



What I am having in mind here, is a world where alcohol does not exist (never has, never will). Being the social creatures that humans are, they would still very much like to gather, like in the form of parties. The key here is that you cannot simply credit alcohol for things that happen when people are intoxicated. It would all happen - and does happen - without any form of intoxication. Some of the downsides, however, would not happen without alcohol; such as alcoholics, of course, but perhaps also DWI (that would of course depend on whether one would allow different sorts of drugs to exist in the thought experiment, and other things).

Rather than focusing solely on the negative effects of alchol, I don't think that alcohol actually contributes to much good. It is more of an icing on the cake where it works positively.
Just because it does happen without alcohol to a large extend doesn't necessarily mean that if there was never any alcohol ever to begin with that it would still happen with the same frequency as it does today.

A world that never had alcohol does not know of it's pleasurable effects. Our world does, and this makes it a large motivating factor to do things that people otherwise would not do. If there was never any alcohol then yeah, I'm sure everyone would be happy going to parties and doing something else instead. But the reality is that people know about alcohol and that it can be really fun and that it has some pleasurable side effects. So you have lots of people talking outside my dorm window going:

"Are you going to Jeff's tonight?"
"Is there alcohol?"
"Nah, Jeff got busted by the cops at his party last time so he is just inviting us over for pizza and stuff."
"I was planning on getting wasted tonight to celebrate, so I will pass this time."

I hear a variant of this kind of conversation everyday at my uni. The world of no alcohol imo can't be used to make a point because the world of no alcohol from my understanding of what you are saying has people unaware of what alcohol is at all.

Crazed Rabbit
06-12-2011, 08:19
People make money out of supplying rare works of art too Hawking. I guess because people make money supplying it they have no trouble obtaining it.

I believe my statement was, "So what. Heroin is also illegal and much harder to obtain. Obtaining nicotine is laughably easy. So of course it's recidivism rate is much worse."

Not to a heroin addict. Which is what we're talking about.

CR

Idaho
06-12-2011, 10:54
Ahh I see. But it seems you are coming from a fact of "humans are social, so they will make friends no matter what". I find that line of thinking flawed.


Agreed. :D


Just because it does happen without alcohol to a large extend doesn't necessarily mean that if there was never any alcohol ever to begin with that it would still happen with the same frequency as it does today.

A world that never had alcohol does not know of it's pleasurable effects. Our world does, and this makes it a large motivating factor to do things that people otherwise would not do. If there was never any alcohol then yeah, I'm sure everyone would be happy going to parties and doing something else instead. But the reality is that people know about alcohol and that it can be really fun and that it has some pleasurable side effects. So you have lots of people talking outside my dorm window going:

"Are you going to Jeff's tonight?"
"Is there alcohol?"
"Nah, Jeff got busted by the cops at his party last time so he is just inviting us over for pizza and stuff."
"I was planning on getting wasted tonight to celebrate, so I will pass this time."

I hear a variant of this kind of conversation everyday at my uni. The world of no alcohol imo can't be used to make a point because the world of no alcohol from my understanding of what you are saying has people unaware of what alcohol is at all.

You are making a point that argues against prohibition. People know about all kinds of intoxicants and they make plans to take them. Prohibition just creates a large number of negative side effects of this decision.

Basically prohibition only works when people choose to comply. In our countries they choose not to. And in my opinion they should have this right to choose.

a completely inoffensive name
06-12-2011, 11:08
You are making a point that argues against prohibition. People know about all kinds of intoxicants and they make plans to take them. Prohibition just creates a large number of negative side effects of this decision.

Basically prohibition only works when people choose to comply. In our countries they choose not to. And in my opinion they should have this right to choose.

I am not specifically targeting prohibition, I am arguing the position Viking was taking that if alcohol never existed, that people would still be having parties because we are social species. What I am saying is that that may be true but only because they have no knowledge of alcohol in the first place. In our reality, there is a thing called alcohol and people know about it and it drives people to parties because the knowledge of how much fun they can have while consuming it has become the main driving factor in a lot of social events.

Fragony
06-12-2011, 13:16
The answer is alcohol and valium. Both legal, and positively encouraged by society.

That's new to me, didn't know valium is addictive. But addiction and withdrawel isn't the only problem, cannabis can trigger a psychoses if you are sensitive to that, and xtc can make you flat out crazy and it can kill, seen it multiple times in the wild days, not pretty I can assure you. Most dangerous are meth and GHB probably, meth is an USA thing though it's just not here, don't even know what it is really, only that it's nasty. GHB is addiction is incredibly nasty and it's easy and cheap to make, no laboratory required a normal kitchen will do

Ice
06-12-2011, 14:18
That's new to me, didn't know valium is addictive. But addiction and withdrawel isn't the only problem, cannabis can trigger a psychoses if you are sensitive to that, and xtc can make you flat out crazy and it can kill, seen it multiple times in the wild days, not pretty I can assure you. Most dangerous are meth and GHB probably, meth is an USA thing though it's just not here, don't even know what it is really, only that it's nasty. GHB is addiction is incredibly nasty and it's easy and cheap to make, no laboratory required a normal kitchen will do

Did you miss the three page article I posted earlier in the thread about the bogey man, psychosis?

Fragony
06-12-2011, 14:40
Did you miss the three page article I posted earlier in the thread about the bogey man, psychosis?

Yes I did will read it, it's commonly accepted here, but I'm no expert

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-12-2011, 15:34
Heroin is relatively benign as a long term habit if managed properly. You can be a 20 year heroin addict, quit and then be fairly healthy. A 20 year booze habit and you're pretty much done for.

A 20 year booze habit can also be virtually benign, so can a 60 year booze habit, or my Gandfather's 75 year booze habit. False eqivilence, because most people who drink are not really addicts, pretty much everyone who starts taking smakc ends up hooked and coming off is a physically as well as psychologically traumatic experience.

So I think you are the one cherry picking there.

Centurion1
06-12-2011, 15:47
How many people have well managed benign heroin or crack habits for God's sakes. The vast majority of young men and women come out of University having imbibed copious amounts of alcohol often to blackout points and have no trouble whatsoever.

Ice
06-12-2011, 16:39
So I think you are the one cherry picking there.

pot meet kettle


How many people have well managed benign heroin or crack habits for God's sakes. The vast majority of young men and women come out of University having imbibed copious amounts of alcohol often to blackout points and have no trouble whatsoever.

Just because they appear "normal" does not mean they have no problems. From what I've seen, college ingrains the idea that binge drinking is a socially acceptable way to act.

Fragony
06-12-2011, 16:44
How many people have well managed benign heroin or crack habits for God's sakes. The vast majority of young men and women come out of University having imbibed copious amounts of alcohol often to blackout points and have no trouble whatsoever.

Since the age of 18 or so, not heroin though. But tried almost everything and that 'one time and you are addicted' is bull. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what you lot call crack not simply boiled out cocaine. Lotsa recreational users out there

Got a little secret for you, cannabis is hardly used here, but cocaine in weekends oh yeah, all types of people from businessmen to university professors. Cannabis is kinda frowned upon

Idaho
06-12-2011, 16:48
There are people with long term, well managed heroin and cocaine habits. There is just nu reason why you would have heard of them. One only has to look at the consumption rates based on supply interception statistics and the numbers reporting issues to know there is a MASSIVE unreported world of drug use out there.

One group well known for maintaining long term benign heroin habits are doctors. Clean supply, clean works, medical attention if needed.

Idaho
06-12-2011, 16:51
How many people have well managed benign heroin or crack habits for God's sakes. The vast majority of young men and women come out of University having imbibed copious amounts of alcohol often to blackout points and have no trouble whatsoever.

The vast majority of people I know left college after years of cannabis, ecstasy, alcohol, nicotine and amphetamine use with no particular ill effect.

Fragony
06-12-2011, 16:59
One only has to look at the consumption rates based on supply interception statistics and the numbers reporting issues to know there is a MASSIVE unreported world of drug use out there.

Oh yeah

Tellos Athenaios
06-12-2011, 19:01
Cannabis is kinda frowned upon

In the same way that cigarettes are. (I.e feel free to do that, but not in my face thank you very much.)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-12-2011, 20:10
The vast majority of people I know left college after years of cannabis, ecstasy, alcohol, nicotine and amphetamine use with no particular ill effect.

The vast majority of those I know found alchohol sufficient. A significant minority enjoyed hash and a much smaller crowd went in for other more mind bending drugs.

Idaho
06-12-2011, 21:42
The vast majority of those I know found alchohol sufficient. A significant minority enjoyed hash and a much smaller crowd went in for other more mind bending drugs.
That's just it pvc. Its not that alcohol isn't "enough". Some people don't like alcohol. They don't like the taste or the high. They prefer to get high and taste cannabis. Threatening them with 5 years in prison is worse than pointless. Its destructive.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-12-2011, 21:59
That's just it pvc. Its not that alcohol isn't "enough". Some people don't like alcohol. They don't like the taste or the high. They prefer to get high and taste cannabis. Threatening them with 5 years in prison is worse than pointless. Its destructive.

Alchohol doesn't really give you a "high" now, does it, and Cannabis smoke smells like rotting flesh - even if it is ever made legal don't expect to be allowed to smoke a joint walking down the street.

Centurion1
06-12-2011, 22:07
The vast majority of people I know left college after years of cannabis, ecstasy, alcohol, nicotine and amphetamine use with no particular ill effect.

The vast majority of people in college do not do ecstasy and amphetamines. A majority does not even smoke pot. Same with nicotine and with nicotine it also depends where you are.

Ice
06-13-2011, 03:08
Alchohol doesn't really give you a "high" now, does it, and Cannabis smoke smells like rotting flesh - even if it is ever made legal don't expect to be allowed to smoke a joint walking down the street.

You are absolutely unbelievable.

Centurion1
06-13-2011, 03:50
Uh yeah i agree on the stench thing though I would say weed smells quite a bit like skunk.

jirisys
06-13-2011, 06:15
You don't have their budget, how would they not have a chance. You can't hurt them without cutting youself in a most painful way, Columia has been fighting the FARC for how long, and well Mexico. Why go any further than decriminalising the end of the foodchain. Keep it in Mexico.

@all who make fun of armoured vehicles, try google

Also, how do you intend to outprice them if you want to tax it?

Colombia, for the spelling impaired.

Ummm. You know the FARC was started as an oposition to US policies and influence and imperialism and colonialism in Colombia? No? Oh?! You thought they were a bunch of terrorist who hated everyone and were narcotrafficants?

Drugs give em big money, that why they use em.

Same as kindappings.

Here's an article for the knowledge impaired:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC#Financing


This debate never fails to produce some of the worst types of justifications for the status quo.

The questions are:

1 - Does criminalisation reduce drug use in society?
2 - Is the criminalisation/legalisation of drugs in our society based on a rational understanding of the evidence/damage of particular drugs?
3 - Is criminalising drug users effective in reducing their drug use?
4 - Does criminalisation of drugs reduce aquisitive crime?
5 - Should it be up to the state to decide in which way people get high?

I don't see how anyone can argue a yes to any of these.

As for PVC's claiming that booze is noble and all about taste, and all other drugs are just about getting high - that's just socialisation. But seeing as he is perhaps the most conservative person on the board, it's useful to have him setting up these straw men.

Nobody can say yes to any, because it's conclusively obvious that it's not the case.

Heh, I could get high on a nice marijuana tea from Peru, I plan to take one if I ever go there, but what is the difference of finnesse between a nice cognac and a nice weed tea?

How bout MDMA? It is a medicinal drug, great for cheering up someone or helping them cope with stress-related problems.

You see, heroin is only injected because it's a drug that's popularly injected. It's stupid to think that someone wouldn't swallow the damn thing or make enemas from 'em.

Alas, it's Fragony's thread, he should vote yes on decriminalization of 420!

When you give your government the power to finger point who is a criminal, then you have lost everything but your soul.

To bad it doesn't seem to exist!

~Jirisys ()

Populus Romanus
06-13-2011, 07:03
Ummm. You know the FARC was started as an oposition to US policies and influence and imperialism and colonialism in Colombia? No? Oh?! You thought they were a bunch of terrorist who hated everyone and were narcotrafficants?



American colonialism in Colombia? You don't say? That is completely wrong, so wrong that I wonder how that could ever even get into someone's head. What? Did American colonists land Colombia and start farming the land?:laugh4: FARC was started as a military branch of the Communist Party in Colombia. Its only goal is to destroy Colombia and impose their own rule on the country. In the end, it comes down to FARC wanting money, which is why they rebelled in the first place (to gain power, and the corresponding rise in $$$), why they kidnap innocent civilians who do nothing wrong (for the ransom $$$), and why they got into narcotrafficking (for the drug $$$). Somehow I get the feeling that you feel the horrendous crimes commited by FARC, which go far beyond trafficking and kidnapping, are actually justified by the propoganda you gave. :disappointed:

Idaho
06-13-2011, 08:46
Alchohol doesn't really give you a "high" now, does it, and Cannabis smoke smells like rotting flesh - even if it is ever made legal don't expect to be allowed to smoke a joint walking down the street.

Of course it does. You seem oblivious to the power of language in this debate. The way the illegal drugs are given their own separate words to male them seem different and justify the status quo.

"High" just describes a pleasurable drug effect. Alcohol gets you high just like any other drug.

Meanwhile America is discovering another negative side effect of limiting peoples right to get high:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13735793
More deaths from prescription ods in a year than for all the crack and heroin use in the 70s and 80s....

Viking
06-13-2011, 09:58
Ahh I see. But it seems you are coming from a fact of "humans are social, so they will make friends no matter what". I find that line of thinking flawed.

It is the reality, though.



Just because it does happen without alcohol to a large extend doesn't necessarily mean that if there was never any alcohol ever to begin with that it would still happen with the same frequency as it does today.

Yet, what do we know about efficiency of these fewer parties? You might just find that the achievements are the same in relevant respects.


A world that never had alcohol does not know of it's pleasurable effects. Our world does, and this makes it a large motivating factor to do things that people otherwise would not do. If there was never any alcohol then yeah, I'm sure everyone would be happy going to parties and doing something else instead. But the reality is that people know about alcohol and that it can be really fun and that it has some pleasurable side effects. So you have lots of people talking outside my dorm window going:

"Are you going to Jeff's tonight?"
"Is there alcohol?"
"Nah, Jeff got busted by the cops at his party last time so he is just inviting us over for pizza and stuff."
"I was planning on getting wasted tonight to celebrate, so I will pass this time."

I hear a variant of this kind of conversation everyday at my uni. The world of no alcohol imo can't be used to make a point because the world of no alcohol from my understanding of what you are saying has people unaware of what alcohol is at all.

The theoretical world is useful because it underscores the superfluity of alchol, which was what you contested. Of course, this also effects the real world.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-13-2011, 12:45
Of course it does. You seem oblivious to the power of language in this debate. The way the illegal drugs are given their own separate words to male them seem different and justify the status quo.

"High" just describes a pleasurable drug effect. Alcohol gets you high just like any other drug.

Funny, I thought "high" was confined to "uppers", alchohol is a "downer". Caffine can get you "high", get you "buzzed" but alchohol is more likely just to make you wall over throw up and pass out.

I've never had a positive effect from excessive drinking, which is why I barely drink.


Meanwhile America is discovering another negative side effect of limiting peoples right to get high:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13735793

"Right to get high" what a novel and silly concept that is. Talk about language use, people use the word "right" as a lever to try to force any behaviour they want to partake in into acceptable society. Why, pray tell, do you have a "right" to get high? Getting high is not necessary for life, you can get by just fine without it, societies where people don't get high, Mormons, Amish, etc. are perfectly functional.

I contend that getting high is a privilage that one might reasonably expect to partake in in a civilised environment provided it is not overly harmful to one's self or society. It is on that basis that certain drugs are prohibitted and certain others are restricted.
More deaths from prescription ods in a year than for all the crack and heroin use in the 70s and 80s....

Idaho
06-13-2011, 13:20
Funny, I thought "high" was confined to "uppers", alchohol is a "downer". Caffine can get you "high", get you "buzzed" but alchohol is more likely just to make you wall over throw up and pass out.

I've never had a positive effect from excessive drinking, which is why I barely drink.

It's a fairly poor descriptor of the subjective effect of any drug. So is best used a blanket term for general recreation effect. A few pints of cider or a bottle of champagne can have a very up effect. Likewise dark Afghan hash will send you to sleep.



Do you have the right to go sky diving? How about the right to take part in a boxing match? Do you have the right to go to the pub to have a drink? What function do any of those things have other than to alter mood and consciousness?

You can do fine without it? Most can, very few do. I'd wager there was a lot of drug use in Mormon and Amish society. Read a little about Rumspringa.

Alas I fear we are getting nowhere in this discussion. I think you are grasping at straws to fend off the logical. When it comes down to it, like many people you just feel threatened and scared of the idea of change.

jirisys
06-13-2011, 15:31
American colonialism in Colombia? You don't say? That is completely wrong, so wrong that I wonder how that could ever even get into someone's head. What? Did American colonists land Colombia and start farming the land?:laugh4: FARC was started as a military branch of the Communist Party in Colombia. Its only goal is to destroy Colombia and impose their own rule on the country. In the end, it comes down to FARC wanting money, which is why they rebelled in the first place (to gain power, and the corresponding rise in $$$), why they kidnap innocent civilians who do nothing wrong (for the ransom $$$), and why they got into narcotrafficking (for the drug $$$). Somehow I get the feeling that you feel the horrendous crimes commited by FARC, which go far beyond trafficking and kidnapping, are actually justified by the propoganda you gave. :disappointed:

For the knowledge impaired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Also, they were a peasant army who rebelled against the government because of the assassination of a populist. I'm not justifying their crimens either, What are those "horrendous crimes" you speak of? I have read about worse in my country back in the old'n day of american control of the government.

How is it that you use so many ad misercordiams and cannot see that it is your own misinformation that you are transmitting the people.

Their cause was just, it is still. Yet their methods aren't.

"Later, in 1964, a section of these guerrillas would develop into the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), which initially was considered as the official armed wing of the Communist party."

In the beginning. The PCC supported the FARC.

"Gradually the PCC and FARC-EP grew apart politically, in particular during the later 1980s. Both organizations had their share of internal debates, for example as to which entity would have greater influence and control over the Unión Patriótica (in the end the PCC accepted FARC supremacy in this regard) during its formation, and later on the issue of continuing to participate in elections as the UP suffered violent suppression (the FARC began to separate itself from legal UP activities starting in 1987)."

In Reagan's administration? You don't say! HE would never intervene negatively in Latin America for USA's own gains! Oh wait... Yeah, he did. ****** **** up.

Besides his utter failure with the war on drugs would not give him much recognition anyways.

"Despite this, human rights organizations and PCC members argue that some Generals and their subordinates in the Colombian National Army have contributed either indirectly or directly to many of the violent actions of drug lords, paramilitaries and death squads against the PCC. Occasionally these individuals have been brought to justice, but the majority of the crimes remain unsolved."

Really? You call the FARC criminals? I guess you never been in a latin american country, criminals are the governments, not the people. It's because of the government that so much criminalization has been going on.

And really. Would it take so much effort to TRY and legalize drugs. See the result.

How can things get worse anyways?

In the words of the great George Carlin: "Pretty soon you have a melting pot; child killers, corpse ******, drug zombies and full **** wackaloos. Wandering the landscape in search for truth and fun. Just like now! Everyone will have guns, everyone will have drugs, and no one will be in charge. Just like now! But at least we'll have a balanced budget."

~Jirisys ()

TheLastDays
06-13-2011, 16:05
Drugs kill people. Fact. I don't see any positive effect they have that would counter that.

Again... I don't think it gets any better by prohibiting drugs that are legal right now and I'm not even suggesting that a legalization of currently illegal drugs would make things worse, it might even make things better in some aspects but I can't understand how anyone can argue that drugs have a net positive effect on society.

Ice
06-13-2011, 16:20
Drugs kill people. Fact. I don't see any positive effect they have that would counter that.

Again... I don't think it gets any better by prohibiting drugs that are legal right now and I'm not even suggesting that a legalization of currently illegal drugs would make things worse, it might even make things better in some aspects but I can't understand how anyone can argue that drugs have a net positive effect on society.

Then you can't read; there is a report commissioned by the UN and about 7 pages of discussion about it.

TheLastDays
06-13-2011, 16:27
No need to insult me.

I can read and I have read the article and most posts since I joined the discussion a few pages ago (I can't be bothered to read what has been said before in a constant back and forth between chewing on the same arguments over and over)

Neither in the article nor in anything that was said thereafter did I read of a positive effect of drugs that outweighs the negative effects they do have, on a large scale. What I did read is that the article and most users said, that you can't stop it anyway and trying harder so stop it might make things worse, while legalizing it would maybe make things a bit better. Which is exactly what I said if you read my last post carefully. But that's something completely different than saying "Drugs are good for people" (in general)

Ice
06-13-2011, 18:42
No need to insult me.

I can read and I have read the article and most posts since I joined the discussion a few pages ago (I can't be bothered to read what has been said before in a constant back and forth between chewing on the same arguments over and over)

Neither in the article nor in anything that was said thereafter did I read of a positive effect of drugs that outweighs the negative effects they do have, on a large scale. What I did read is that the article and most users said, that you can't stop it anyway and trying harder so stop it might make things worse, while legalizing it would maybe make things a bit better. Which is exactly what I said if you read my last post carefully. But that's something completely different than saying "Drugs are good for people" (in general)

I apologize as you are correct, and I did indeed misread what you originally wrote. However, it depends on how you look at the situation. I don't think you'll find one member here who will argue that crack cocaine has a net positive impact on society, but soft drugs like marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, etc are really harder to figure. These drugs cause little harm to society and offer the benefit of relieving stress and having a good time, while arguably having a medical benefit as well. Many opium derivatives are also used in to ease a patient's pain, but have a much more drastic impact when abused and used incorrectly. This is a rather moot discussion though because the drugs are available and aren't going away any time soon.

Once again, sorry jumping the gun. I'm just get annoyed with a few posters in this thread, but you shouldn't be one of them. :bow:

TheLastDays
06-13-2011, 20:01
No worries :yes:

You are right, it is dependable on what substance you're talking about. Medicinal purposes of course are a good argument, for some people relaxation may be a good argument, for me the human life is of higher priority so, if some persons die from it, how few they might be, even thousands gaining relaxation or other "minor" positive effects from it wouldn't make the substance worth having to me...

It is a philosophical question though, in that you are correct, these drugs are around and that won't change...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-13-2011, 20:27
It's a fairly poor descriptor of the subjective effect of any drug. So is best used a blanket term for general recreation effect. A few pints of cider or a bottle of champagne can have a very up effect. Likewise dark Afghan hash will send you to sleep.

Or best not used at all.


Do you have the right to go sky diving? How about the right to take part in a boxing match? Do you have the right to go to the pub to have a drink? What function do any of those things have other than to alter mood and consciousness?

No...you don't have a right to go sky diving, if you did everyone would get free lessons, same way you don't have a right to drive a car. You can't extend the concept of "rights" beyond those needed for the polity to function politically, leiasure activity is in no way part of that. If the polity deems a certain activity harmful to the individual and/or society it bans it.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I assume you wouldn't want to un-ban fox hunting, would you?


You can do fine without it? Most can, very few do. I'd wager there was a lot of drug use in Mormon and Amish society. Read a little about Rumspringa.

I would wager there is some, but much less than in society in general Mormans and the Amish really are very clean living, especially the Amish.


Alas I fear we are getting nowhere in this discussion. I think you are grasping at straws to fend off the logical. When it comes down to it, like many people you just feel threatened and scared of the idea of change.

On the contrary, we have hit the nail on the head.

Is drug using a "Right" or a "Privilage"?

jirisys
06-13-2011, 20:35
Or best not used at all.
Is drug using a "Right" or a "Privilage"?

Privilege? :inquisitive:

Alcohol kills people. Fact. You get more car accidents, and domestic violence, and drunken murders and drunken accident that all drugs do.

We should ban alcohol.

It doesn't HAVE to be good for society because it's a ************* private deed. It's not like you go around converting people into cocainism.

You do it yourself, you are free to do so, you have the RIGHT to do so if you can get a hold of it.


No...you don't have a right to go sky diving, if you did everyone would get free lessons, same way you don't have a right to drive a car. You can't extend the concept of "rights" beyond those needed for the polity to function politically, leiasure activity is in no way part of that. If the polity deems a certain activity harmful to the individual and/or society it bans it.

Ok, let me clear things out for you.

Right is something that you can do with few, if not any restrictions; that is, if you ever wish to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do said thing.

Privilede is the ability to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do a specific task or thing.

I have the right to remain silent. I can choose not to. That doesn't make it a priviledge.

Polity you say? :inquisitive: So you want to give the government the right to willingly pinpoint a criminal just because they believe they are.
What is it about methheads that is so dangerous? only to themselves. Like self-masochists or self-mutilators. Unlike drunkards, drunk drivers, or even robbers, they are not a problem to anybody else.


You are right, it is dependable on what substance you're talking about. Medicinal purposes of course are a good argument, for some people relaxation may be a good argument, for me the human life is of higher priority so, if some persons die from it, how few they might be, even thousands gaining relaxation or other "minor" positive effects from it wouldn't make the substance worth having to me...

It is a philosophical question though, in that you are correct, these drugs are around and that won't change...

Why do you care about what a man wishes to sniff, puff, drink or smoke if it doesn't affect you? Isn't that a bit egocentric?

"Say dave! You have a mighty fine hash there, care to tell us why are you endangering yourself without asking permission from the world to do things that only affect you (besides a little smell which nobody really bothers much about). Why are you so selfish to do things you should be liable do without anybody medling; without being authorized by society to do so?"

That's why I don't go around trowing water at other people's cigarette, as long as they don't smoke near me, that is.

~Jirisys ()

ajaxfetish
06-13-2011, 20:58
You can do fine without it? Most can, very few do. I'd wager there was a lot of drug use in Mormon and Amish society. Read a little about Rumspringa.



I would wager there is some, but much less than in society in general Mormans and the Amish really are very clean living, especially the Amish.


Here are some Statistics (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/social_eom.htm), apparently from BYU sociologist Stephen J. Bahr:


SUBSTANCE USE. LDS doctrine prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other addictive drugs. Among adults and adolescents, usage rates are considerably lower among Latter-day Saints than among other religious groups. Only 28 percent of adult Latter-day Saints say they drink alcohol, compared with 65 percent of Protestants, 85 percent of Catholics, and 86 percent of Jews. Fourteen percent say they smoke tobacco, compared with 36 percent of Protestants, 38 percent of Catholics, and 28 percent of Jews.

The NIDA survey of substance use among high school seniors reveals substantial differences between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups. About 33 percent of LDS high school seniors said they had used alcohol within the previous thirty days, compared to 62 percent of Protestants and 75 percent of Catholics. The percentage of LDS seniors who smoke is half as large as among the other religious groups—14 percent among LDS, 28 percent among Protestants, and 32 percent among Catholics. The differences for marijuana are not as large, but are still lower for LDS students. For example, 14 percent of LDS seniors had used marijuana during the past month, compared to 22 percent among Protestants and 25 percent among Catholics. LDS students also have low rates of cocaine use. Five percent had used cocaine during the past month, compared to 5 percent among Protestants, 7 percent among Catholics, and 8 percent among Jews.

It looks like the data supports PVC's suspicion: use is present but lower than in other groups. Speaking from personal experience, which probably had as much to do with my social circles as my religion, I don't think I've ever been offered drugs (incl. alcohol/tobacco) by another Mormon. I suspect there's considerably more substance use among Mormons who are not actively participating in religious life. Drug use really is socially stigmatized in Mormon culture (even caffeine carries some stigma, and it's not even prohibited by Mormon doctrine). On the other hand, I think I recall hearing that prescription drug abuse was high in some predominantly Mormon areas, which makes sense to me as they lack the stigma attached to others.

Ajax

edit: ah, here's what I was thinking of: Utah leads the nation in the use of prescription anti-depressants (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon64.html)

Salt Lake City -- Doctors here have for years talked about the widespread use of antidepressants in the state. But there was no hard evidence until a national study that tracked drug prescriptions came to an unexpected conclusion:

Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average.

Utah's high usage was cited by one of the study's authors as the most surprising finding to emerge from the data. The study was released last summer and updated in January.

Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon. Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed.

Few here question the veracity of the study, which was a tabulation of prescription orders, said Dr. Curtis Canning, president of the Utah Psychiatric Assn. But trying to understand the "why" has puzzled many, he said.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-13-2011, 23:12
Privilege? :inquisitive:

Alcohol kills people. Fact. You get more car accidents, and domestic violence, and drunken murders and drunken accident that all drugs do.

We should ban alcohol.

It doesn't HAVE to be good for society because it's a ************* private deed. It's not like you go around converting people into cocainism.

You do it yourself, you are free to do so, you have the RIGHT to do so if you can get a hold of it.

Yes, alchohol kills people, so do almost all drugs when taken to excess, more people drink than do other drugs so obviously more people will over indulge. No surprise there.

That does not make intoxication a right, it isn't something you need to do, just something people enjoy.


Ok, let me clear things out for you.

Right is something that you can do with few, if not any restrictions; that is, if you ever wish to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do said thing.

Privilede is the ability to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do a specific task or thing.

I have the right to remain silent. I can choose not to. That doesn't make it a priviledge.

Let me clear this up for you. A right is something that may not be restricted without due cause, it being considered necessary for your basic functioning as a person, usually. A privilage is something you are permitted to do, and are otherwise unable to do.

These vary from society to society, the only society in the West where it is considered a right to carry a deadly weapon is the US, for example.


Polity you say? :inquisitive: So you want to give the government the right to willingly pinpoint a criminal just because they believe they are.
What is it about methheads that is so dangerous? only to themselves. Like self-masochists or self-mutilators. Unlike drunkards, drunk drivers, or even robbers, they are not a problem to anybody else.

What do you think a government is, exactly, the Empire from Star Wars? The legislature is elected from the polity, it passes laws - it as an organ of society.


Why do you care about what a man wishes to sniff, puff, drink or smoke if it doesn't affect you? Isn't that a bit egocentric?

Depends, if he steals from me it's my business, if he blows halucinagenic smoke in my face it's my business.


"Say dave! You have a mighty fine hash there, care to tell us why are you endangering yourself without asking permission from the world to do things that only affect you (besides a little smell which nobody really bothers much about). Why are you so selfish to do things you should be liable do without anybody medling; without being authorized by society to do so?"

Aside from the smell (which is akin to rotting flesh) the lit end of Dave's spliff is emitting the same fumes he's breathing in, so if I want to avoid his drug of choice I can't breathe the same air as him.

Who say's you "should" be allowed to intoxicate yourself. You can't just say, "it's a right" and be done with it.

"It doesn't hurt anyone else" has fallen by the wayside already, as we have firmly established that all drug use has the potential to hurt others.

What other justification do you have?

a completely inoffensive name
06-13-2011, 23:26
I have a right to take any drug I want, whenever I want. Have all of you forgotten the right to live?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-14-2011, 00:12
I have a right to take any drug I want, whenever I want. Have all of you forgotten the right to live?

Joke?

jirisys
06-14-2011, 00:28
Yes, alchohol kills people, so do almost all drugs when taken to excess, more people drink than do other drugs so obviously more people will over indulge. No surprise there.

That does not make intoxication a right, it isn't something you need to do, just something people enjoy.

You don't need to use your computer, yet it's something you enjoy. Does that mean you shouldn't do it?


Let me clear this up for you. A right is something that may not be restricted without due cause, it being considered necessary for your basic functioning as a person, usually. A privilage is something you are permitted to do, and are otherwise unable to do.

These vary from society to society, the only society in the West where it is considered a right to carry a deadly weapon is the US, for example.

Wrong. Those are not the definitions and you still mispelled "privilege". Is it a privilege for a rich 21 year old from a 3rd world country to go buy a 4Runner without any real economic loss? Yes; although people would love to buy one, and would be able to buy it with a loan, they don't do it because it's expensive. He does it because he's rich. Not because he has some special clause that dictates that he, over all people CAN buy that car.


What do you think a government is, exactly, the Empire from Star Wars? The legislature is elected from the polity, it passes laws - it as an organ of society.

Funny, considering how the Empire never actually had a war on drugs since they were so common.
Polity? What the hell do you mean by that? Politicians? Politics? Politburo?
Considering how most of the politicians do not care about the ACTUAL care of the people. See the Arizona immigration law, or the no evolution without creationism Kansas law.

Consider this: Making illegal immigrants will not solve the problem. Immigrants will still be coming, and as time passes, with even more numbers. You only made it successful to **** their lives a little bit more, and jail them more, does that solve the problem? NO.

How bout politicians agree that television is too violent, and decide to filter all channels so they are baby-friendly. And if someone watches even an old 24 episode, they are going to jail. Does that make any sense to you? Can you transposition this into something that only hurts a person that chooses to do it? Not drunk driving, or a company product, but a person who lost his right to do something he wanted to do/see/smell himself.

They don't care about most people. They only care about their agenda. Drugs scare people, people pay money to govt and police to lock drug users, govt gives more budget to WoD, govt makes more people, more rich.

If you don't believe we are in a dystopia (not an orwellian, I'll grant you that), then you see five lights.


Depends, if he steals from me it's my business, if he blows halucinagenic smoke in my face it's my business.

But yet he doesn't. I doubt we would legalize smoking pot on the street, it has a foul odor, I grant you that. But we will also ban al cigars and cigarettes too. They all smell bad in my book. And I'm a boulean programmer, so 1 AND 0. IF 1, THEN PRINT 'banned'.

Then kick his ***. A mi que me cuentas? Why should I give a damn about some guy who throws smoke at your face. I would punch him! Not try to ban smoking.


Aside from the smell (which is akin to rotting flesh) the lit end of Dave's spliff is emitting the same fumes he's breathing in, so if I want to avoid his drug of choice I can't breathe the same air as him.

Get a gas mask and also a hold of yourself. Cigarette smokers are worse actually, since the smoke is filled with nicotine, possibly also cancerogenic. Let the guy smoke his pot, and if you can't stand it, just ask him to leave. He's not gonna fight you high, and if he does, well. He's done for.


Who say's you "should" be allowed to intoxicate yourself. You can't just say, "it's a right" and be done with it.

It IS a right. I have the right suicide. Ergo, I can inject some stuff on my veins. I have the right to do whatever I want with my body.

You don't go around pouring liquor and sipping in some MDMA to someone else, are you? If you are, you should face the consequences. Otherwise. Go ahead, it's your ****** body, you do what you want with it.


"It doesn't hurt anyone else" has fallen by the wayside already, as we have firmly established that all drug use has the potential to hurt others.

What other justification do you have?

In what way? Families broken? They are imbeciles because they cannot accept his child for what he does. Same thing I would say to a gay-hating family who was broken by a gay son.

Grief? I can think of many, less fun ways to grieve families than that. Going to war is one very easy.

What else? Tell me something about currently illegal drugs that hurt other people; AND in a bigger way than any legal drug (alcohol, medicinal, smoke).


Joke?

Truth.

~Jirisys ()

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-14-2011, 01:37
You don't need to use your computer, yet it's something you enjoy. Does that mean you shouldn't do it?

It means I won't bitch unduly if I'm stopped from using it for a good reason.


Wrong. Those are not the definitions and you still mispelled "privilege". Is it a privilege for a rich 21 year old from a 3rd world country to go buy a 4Runner without any real economic loss? Yes; although people would love to buy one, and would be able to buy it with a loan, they don't do it because it's expensive. He does it because he's rich. Not because he has some special clause that dictates that he, over all people CAN buy that car.

OED:


Right, noun

1. [mass noun] that which is morally correct, just, or honourable: she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong | [count noun] the rights and wrongs of the matter.
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something: [with infinitive] she had every right to be angry | you're quite within your rights to ask for your money back | [mass noun] there is no right of appeal against the decision. ■(rights) the authority to perform, publish, film, or televise a particular work, event, etc.: they sold the paperback rights.
3. (the right) the right-hand part, side, or direction: take the first turning on the right | (one's right) she seated me on her right. ■ (in football or a similar sport) the right-hand half of the field when facing the opponent's goal. ■ the right wing of an army. ■ a right turn: he made a right in Dorchester Avenue. ■ a road or entrance on the right: take the first right over the stream. ■ a person's right fist, especially a boxer's. ■ a blow given with the right fist: the young copper swung a terrific right.
4. (often the Right) [treated as sing. or pl.] a group or party favouring conservative views and supporting capitalist principles: the Right got in at the election | his proposal was viewed with alarm by the right of the party.

Privilege, noun

▶[I]noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group: education is a right, not a privilege | [mass noun] he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.
■ something regarded as a special honour: I had the privilege of giving the Sir George Brown memorial lecture.
■ (also absolute privilege) (especially in a parliamentary context) the right to say or write something without the risk of incurring punishment or legal action for defamation.
■ the right of a lawyer or official to refuse to divulge confidential information.
■ chiefly (historical) a grant to an individual, corporation, or place of special rights or immunities, especially in the form of a franchise or monopoly.

▶verb [with obj.] (formal) grant a privilege or privileges to: English inheritance law privileged the eldest son.
■ exempt (someone) from a liability or obligation to which others are subject: barristers are privileged from arrest going to, coming from, and abiding in court.

So, it is not a legal (or moral) entitlement to be intoxicated, as it is generally accepted only certain people (over a certain age) are allowed to do it.

Ergo, intoxication is a privilege.


Funny, considering how the Empire never actually had a war on drugs since they were so common.
Polity? What the hell do you mean by that? Politicians? Politics? Politburo?
Considering how most of the politicians do not care about the ACTUAL care of the people. See the Arizona immigration law, or the no evolution without creationism Kansas law.

"Polity" would be the whole politically active community, which would be composed of all elligable electors.


Consider this: Making illegal immigrants will not solve the problem. Immigrants will still be coming, and as time passes, with even more numbers. You only made it successful to **** their lives a little bit more, and jail them more, does that solve the problem? NO.

Well, you just deport them. Legal immigration implies becoming part of the polity, and there is no morel, legal or logical imperative that the polity should admit anyone who wants in. For example, we produce enough murderers of our own, we shouldn't import more from other places.


How bout politicians agree that television is too violent, and decide to filter all channels so they are baby-friendly. And if someone watches even an old 24 episode, they are going to jail. Does that make any sense to you? Can you transposition this into something that only hurts a person that chooses to do it? Not drunk driving, or a company product, but a person who lost his right to do something he wanted to do/see/smell himself.

Have you seen some American TV?

Seriously though, should small children be allowed to watch snuff porn, or porn generally? You are just resorting to argumentum absurdum, which is pointless. Censorship is perfectly reasonable in some contexts.

They don't care about most people. They only care about their agenda. Drugs scare people, people pay money to govt and police to lock drug users, govt gives more budget to WoD, govt makes more people, more rich.


If you don't believe we are in a dystopia (not an orwellian, I'll grant you that), then you see five lights.

I'm not familliar with the reference. In any case, politicians are just like other people - with the exception that they can be bothered to go up for election. People always whine about politicians but by and large democracy works.


But yet he doesn't. I doubt we would legalize smoking pot on the street, it has a foul odor, I grant you that. But we will also ban al cigars and cigarettes too. They all smell bad in my book. And I'm a boulean programmer, so 1 AND 0. IF 1, THEN PRINT 'banned'.

Yet, he does, we have all but banned smoking in public in the UK and this is a far more pleasent country for it. I no longer have to take a shower when I come back from the pub.

[/quote]Then kick his ***. A mi que me cuentas? Why should I give a damn about some guy who throws smoke at your face. I would punch him! Not try to ban smoking.[/quote]

That would be:

A: Uncivilised.

B: Illegal

C: Breach his right to be free from violent assault.


Get a gas mask and also a hold of yourself. Cigarette smokers are worse actually, since the smoke is filled with nicotine, possibly also cancerogenic. Let the guy smoke his pot, and if you can't stand it, just ask him to leave. He's not gonna fight you high, and if he does, well. He's done for.

I have a right to not have my health endangered by another, in the same way the smoker has a right not to suffer a broken nose. Ergo, I should not have to risk being exposed to the smoke. Hash smoke is carcenogic as well, it also has tar in - more or less than tobacco we're not quite sure - but it is a health hazard.


It IS a right. I have the right suicide. Ergo, I can inject some stuff on my veins. I have the right to do whatever I want with my body.

Say's you, but when the Human Rights Charter etc. were framed the determination was that you have a positive right to control your own body, i.e. a right to be free from harm. It is a very modern idea that this means you also have a right to inflict harm upon yourself. I completely reject that, especially when it is extended to the "right to suicide". Suicide is a form of homocide and I am opposed to all forms of homocide except in the etreme of preserving your own life or the life of another.


You don't go around pouring liquor and sipping in some MDMA to someone else, are you? If you are, you should face the consequences. Otherwise. Go ahead, it's your ****** body, you do what you want with it.

Personally, I think this attitude shows the threadbare state of our society and modern ideas of morality.


In what way? Families broken? They are imbeciles because they cannot accept his child for what he does. Same thing I would say to a gay-hating family who was broken by a gay son.

Even if the child is stealing to support their haibt? Lying to their parents, endangering their own lives? Don't be so glib.


Grief? I can think of many, less fun ways to grieve families than that. Going to war is one very easy.

The alternative being.... War is War, War is Hell. Such is life.


What else? Tell me something about currently illegal drugs that hurt other people; AND in a bigger way than any legal drug (alcohol, medicinal, smoke).

Crime to support the addiction, for one.

Crazed Rabbit
06-14-2011, 02:12
A couple quick points;

On whether drugs are "good" for society. We already know some are (prescribed drugs, alcohol (people who drink moderately live longer), weed for pain). Others (cocaine, LSD) just get people high.

But to me, I don't really give a rip whether allowing people to get high is 'good for society'. We should be free to do what we want even if it doesn't benefit 'society' because we should not be slaves to 'the greater good'.

On banning drugs because they're bad for people; guess what - people will use them anyway. It's like thinking banning guns stops illegal use of guns. Illegality just makes the problems worse.

CR

a completely inoffensive name
06-14-2011, 03:41
Joke?

Do the Isle's not have the same double meaning of the word live?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-14-2011, 03:53
Do the Isle's not have the same double meaning of the word live?

Yes - but I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, as that's manifestly not the intention when that particular right was framed.

jirisys
06-14-2011, 04:41
It means I won't bitch unduly if I'm stopped from using it for a good reason.

There is only one good reason, and it is when you directly may, will or have harmed others. No other such reason exists.


So, it is not a legal (or moral) entitlement to be intoxicated, as it is generally accepted only certain people (over a certain age) are allowed to do it.

Funny how you went through all this complication to prove my definitions were closer than yours.

Who will stop them from doing it? The LAW?


Ergo, intoxication is a privilege.

Intoxication is a word which describes a state where one substance is harming a person.

Intoxication is not a privilige. And you can get intoxicated with pretty much anything. A child in Indonesia smokes 2 cigarette packages a day. So? It's not a right to get intoxicated, it's a damned action. The right you are talking about, is the right to consume, inject and sniff copious amounts of anything you want. As long as it doesn't directly affect anybody or is unintended.

You confused yourself, the definitions you put forward make your argument invalid. You put forward that "intoxicating yourself is not a right, it's a privilege."

And then:

Privilege, noun

▶noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

WT*?


"Polity" would be the whole politically active community, which would be composed of all elligible electors.


Pseudo intellectualism plus spelling mistakes make for a funny situation.

Take it all the way and say "Politeia", makes more sense.


Well, you just deport them. Legal immigration implies becoming part of the polity, and there is no morel, legal or logical imperative that the polity should admit anyone who wants in. For example, we produce enough murderers of our own, we shouldn't import more from other places.

For crying out loud! Say POLICY! Stop using the same word that can be easily replaced.

MORAL. Not "Morel"

So we just learned you are xenophobic, you think of immigrants as murdereds. That's cute.

Also you missed my point.

My point is that the problem is still there, even if you deport them and jail them, there's no resolution to that problem. You're just wasting time and money that could go to solve the problem, not cut it's fingernails.
nails.


Have you [i]seen some American TV?

Seriously though, should small children be allowed to watch snuff porn, or porn generally? You are just resorting to argumentum absurdum, which is pointless. Censorship is perfectly reasonable in some contexts.

Have you seen American TV?*

You missed my point again. I put forward a hypothetical situation, you turned into a censorship debate.

Kids watch porn. I think you never heard that many kids start watching porn before they even become of legal age. Does the law stop it? No. Is it really that big-a deal? No. Why? He's going to watch it anyways, even if you censor it till midnight. I doubt that any internetz will claim that he has never seen porn, or at least a naked woman.



They don't care about most people. They only care about their agenda. Drugs scare people, people pay money to govt and police to lock drug users, govt gives more budget to WoD, govt makes more people, more rich.

I'm not familliar with the reference. In any case, politicians are just like other people - with the exception that they can be bothered to go up for election. People always whine about politicians but by and large democracy works.

Picard.

Representative democracy fails in every way possible. When have you ever felt secure at night in a low-class neighborhood? Why is there a low-class neighborhood? Why isn't equality really emphazised? Why do people still kill gays in Uganda, where a president and reprentative democracy is installed? Why do people still protest the goverment even if their choices are supposed to be heard? Why did thousands pour into Seattle to protest agaisnt the G-8? Were they protesting because the democracy worked too much?


Yet, he does, we have all but banned smoking in public in the UK and this is a far more pleasent country for it. I no longer have to take a shower when I come back from the pub.

Then let him smoke in his house. I don't give a damn. Doesn't bother you if he smokes 30 miles away from you? He always has anyways.



Then kick his ***. A mi que me cuentas? Why should I give a damn about some guy who throws smoke at your face. I would punch him! Not try to ban smoking.

That would be:

A: Uncivilised.

B: Illegal

C: Breach his right to be free from violent assault.

The privilege to be free from violent assault? It's not truly right. It's a privilege only few people get. (I base this on my definitions, not yours)

Then how do you expect to handle ANY smoker that does that stupidity? You plan to sue him?

What is it with you and impossible questions? You never have asked a single question that can be answered by your own imposed narrow limits.

Besides, you don't have to worry about it. If the UK banned smoking from public areas, then they would ban pot smoking too.


I have a right to not have my health endangered by another, in the same way the smoker has a right not to suffer a broken nose. Ergo, I should not have to risk being exposed to the smoke. Hash smoke is carcenogic as well, it also has tar in - more or less than tobacco we're not quite sure - but it is a health hazard.


"In Europe, some Commonwealth nations and the Middle-East, joints or "spliffs" are rolled by mixing hashish with tobacco to get it to burn easier, a practice which can lead to unintended nicotine addiction[10] and health problems associated with tobacco use, often later blamed on the cannabis. Young users are frequently warned to "cut" or pad "strong" cannabis (such as "skunkweed") with seemingly "milder" cigarette tobaccoes to ward off dangerous "drug effects".[citation needed]

A practice in some countries is to "roast" tobacco before mixing it with cannabis[citation needed], for example by heating a cigarette slowly with a lighter, then blowing air through the filter when it gets hot enough, in order to remove sugars, nicotine, etc., leading to a cleaner-tasting tobacco flavor.

Blunt: in North America, since the 1990s when the practice was promoted in the lyrics of rap songs by significantly named artists like Tupac and LL Cool J, a "blunt" is rolled using an empty cigar skin (from which the filler tobacco has been removed but which itself contains addictive nicotine) to "wrap" cannabis in. The "blunt" is named after a commercial brand of cigar from which wrapper skins were often salvaged and used to smoke cannabis."

"Although cannabis smoke is not nearly as harmful as tobacco smoke,[23] smoking is the most harmful method of cannabis consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems[24] (e.g., coughing and sputum)."

So... You make the link yet? Make packaged joints without nicotine, and you get better smokes.


The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer,"[12] while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes a day.[11][12] It is known that Cannabis smoke, like all smoke, contains carcinogens and thus has a probability of triggering lung cancer, but THC, unlike nicotine, is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[12] Cannabidiol (CBD), an isomer of THC and another major cannabinoid that is also present in cannabis, has been reported elsewhere to have anti-tumor properties as well.[

Also:

Not many cancer health hazards from hash mah brotha'. You just making that **** up!


Say's you, but when the Human Rights Charter etc. were framed the determination was that you have a positive right to control your own body, i.e. a right to be free from harm. It is a very modern idea that this means you also have a right to inflict harm upon yourself. I completely reject that, especially when it is extended to the "right to suicide". Suicide is a form of homocide and I am opposed to all forms of homocide except in the etreme of preserving your own life or the life of another.

Good for you to reject that.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

They're gonna do it anyway. If I want to end my life, I should be entitled to do so. Euthanasia for the sad.


Personally, I think this attitude shows the threadbare state of our society and modern ideas of morality.

Yes, it shows that we are no longer middle-age religious fanatics who would be shocked and order and execution when seeing a women prancing around with half of her belly showing.


Even if the child is stealing to support their haibt? Lying to their parents, endangering their own lives? Don't be so glib.

Gullible. Why should he need to steal if Meth and Marijuana are highly less addictive than even alcohol and tobbaco? I think the difference between alcoholic thieves and hash thieves is a ratio of 20:1. Only one with high amounts is cocaine. And only becasue it's illegal, so it's expensive. Get rid of the conjured up illegality and drop crime rates. They don't have anything to steal.

What are you implying? That every single pot smoker is a thief? I have two hashead friends, never stole a thing besides a few pencils since they lost their own.


The alternative being.... War is War, War is Hell. Such is life.

Pointlessness.


Crime to support the addiction, for one.

So the only reason you have to make drugs illegal is; first, one of th many consequences of making them illegal; and second, the most vocal and outspoken that everyone wants them legalized?

Guess it sums up your argument pretty nice.

Good days to you. Contradiction man!

~Jirisys ()

Fragony
06-14-2011, 07:29
'Colombia, for the spelling impaired.'

apologies to spelling-autists

Idaho
06-14-2011, 11:57
A couple quick points;

On whether drugs are "good" for society. We already know some are (prescribed drugs, alcohol (people who drink moderately live longer), weed for pain). Others (cocaine, LSD) just get people high.

A couple of quick points:

Alcohol use doesn't make people live longer. The figures are skewed by people with long term health problems not drinking.

Prescribed drugs, as has been pointed out on this thread, are not necessarily beneficial. They are often prescribed because people want to get high, but have no legal, or socially acceptable way of doing so.


PVC

A right is the general and legal acceptance that someone be allowed to do something without impediment. Not that something MUST be done, or that it would be provided free.

Throughout human history we have taken intoxicants. We are attracted to them. Most cultures have had one or more intoxicants that they have used for ritual or pleasurable purposes. Trying to prevent people is foolish and counterproductive.

Fragony
06-14-2011, 12:39
Indeed, always have always will.

War on drugs is war on users now, why would you? The real war on drugs is simply a war against a currency, there is no need to harass users. Bloody let them do what they want

TheLastDays
06-14-2011, 13:02
Indeed, always have always will.

War on drugs is war on users now, why would you? The real war on drugs is simply a war against a currency, there is no need to harass users. Bloody let them do what they want

You don't cease to amaze me and I don't really mean in a good way... Haven't you spent the rest of the thread arguing for prohibition?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-14-2011, 13:16
There is only one good reason, and it is when you directly may, will or have harmed others. No other such reason exists.

Opinion, not fact.


Funny how you went through all this complication to prove my definitions were closer than yours.

Who will stop them from doing it? The LAW?

My definition was not wrong, a right is something you are automatically allowed to do, a privilege is granted to you.


Intoxication is a word which describes a state where one substance is harming a person.

Intoxication is not a privilige. And you can get intoxicated with pretty much anything. A child in Indonesia smokes 2 cigarette packages a day. So? It's not a right to get intoxicated, it's a damned action. The right you are talking about, is the right to consume, inject and sniff copious amounts of anything you want. As long as it doesn't directly affect anybody or is unintended.

You confused yourself, the definitions you put forward make your argument invalid. You put forward that "intoxicating yourself is not a right, it's a privilege."

And then:


WT*?


I'm sorry - where's the problem? Intoxication would only be a right if everyone was allowed to do it, but we restrict intoxication by age and chosen substance. Only adults are allowed to intoxicate themselves, ergo it is a privilege.



Pseudo intellectualism plus spelling mistakes make for a funny situation.

Take it all the way and say "Politeia", makes more sense.

Focusing on spelling mistakes is a vage form of ad hominem and irrelevent.


For crying out loud! Say POLICY! Stop using the same word that can be easily replaced.

I don't mean "policy" though.


MORAL. Not "Morel"

Impossible to read? No. Get over it.


So we just learned you are xenophobic, you think of immigrants as murdereds. That's cute.

Ad hominem, and incorrect. I simply said that a murderer from another country should not be allowed to immigrage, nor should other undesirables like professional criminals.


Also you missed my point.

My point is that the problem is still there, even if you deport them and jail them, there's no resolution to that problem. You're just wasting time and money that could go to solve the problem, not cut it's fingernails.
nails.

So, because a particular policy doesn't work perfectly we should abandon it? Don't be infantile, whatever policy is adopted will be imperfect and fail to be succesful 100% of the time, that does not make immigration control something that should just be abandoned.


Have you seen American TV?*

You missed my point again. I put forward a hypothetical situation, you turned into a censorship debate.

Kids watch porn. I think you never heard that many kids start watching porn before they even become of legal age. Does the law stop it? No. Is it really that big-a deal? No. Why? He's going to watch it anyways, even if you censor it till midnight. I doubt that any internetz will claim that he has never seen porn, or at least a naked woman.

So, at what age is it ok, 2, 6, 10? Again, your argument is "well we won't stop everyone, so let's just give up."


Picard.

Not helpful.


Representative democracy fails in every way possible. When have you ever felt secure at night in a low-class neighborhood? Why is there a low-class neighborhood? Why isn't equality really emphazised? Why do people still kill gays in Uganda, where a president and reprentative democracy is installed? Why do people still protest the goverment even if their choices are supposed to be heard? Why did thousands pour into Seattle to protest agaisnt the G-8? Were they protesting because the democracy worked too much?

Well, I live in a poor neighbourhood, and I'm really fairly happy with our political system. Is democracy perfect? No. What you suggest instead.

Also, you might not that, on reflection, the Ugandan parliament did not pass a law mandating the death penalty for homosexuality. Even so, that debate is a result of Ugandan society, not Ugandan democracy.


The privilege to be free from violent assault? It's not truly right. It's a privilege only few people get. (I base this on my definitions, not yours)

No, it's a right - at least here - it is illegal to assault someone in the UK, which includes threatening them, it has been this way for around 400 years. Actually touching someone it "Battery" if you are convicted of both that can be up to a year in prison.


Then how do you expect to handle ANY smoker that does that stupidity? You plan to sue him?

Actually, blowing smoke in my face is illegal, it is also a form of assault, or maybe actually battery, but you'd be prosecuted under assult - if I bothered to bring charges. The point is that I should never have to deal with that in the first place.


What is it with you and impossible questions? You never have asked a single question that can be answered by your own imposed narrow limits.

You just think that because they aren't the sort of answers you want.


So... You make the link yet? Make packaged joints without nicotine, and you get better smokes.

Packaged joints would have what else in, though? Loose Hash would still be cut with tobacco to stretch it out, why would people start smoking it pure anyway. How soon do you want the walls to start oozing?


Also:

Not many cancer health hazards from hash mah brotha'. You just making that **** up!

Any smoke inhalation is bad for your health, cannabis has tar in, doesn't it? That's the thing that causes most of the lung disease and the hacking cough in smokers.


Good for you to reject that.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

They're gonna do it anyway. If I want to end my life, I should be entitled to do so. Euthanasia for the sad.

There's the difference between you and me then, I care about other people and about society in general. You don't.


Yes, it shows that we are no longer middle-age religious fanatics who would be shocked and order and execution when seeing a women prancing around with half of her belly showing.

Right... so modern exploitation of women is better, then?


Gullible. Why should he need to steal if Meth and Marijuana are highly less addictive than even alcohol and tobbaco? I think the difference between alcoholic thieves and hash thieves is a ratio of 20:1. Only one with high amounts is cocaine. And only becasue it's illegal, so it's expensive. Get rid of the conjured up illegality and drop crime rates. They don't have anything to steal.

What are you implying? That every single pot smoker is a thief? I have two hashead friends, never stole a thing besides a few pencils since they lost their own.

I was thinking more of heroin users, or is drug legalisation just for some drugs all of a sudden?


Pointlessness.

Not if you were the French in WWI or WWII, it was fight or be enslaved or exterminated. Sadly their are worse things for a country to endure than war, much worse ones.

Fragony
06-14-2011, 13:18
You don't cease to amaze me and I don't really mean in a good way... Haven't you spent the rest of the thread arguing for prohibition?

And also for discriminalising no? There are shops that sell 'amazing' glasses should you need one

Idaho
06-14-2011, 13:50
You don't cease to amaze me and I don't really mean in a good way... Haven't you spent the rest of the thread arguing for prohibition?

Fragony is a conservative. He is scared of any change he might not understand. He knows that in his country he has ready access to drugs and has little or no danger of legal penalty for taking them. Beyond that he doesn't really care, so doesn't want any change in the law or culture of his country.

Fragony
06-14-2011, 14:04
Fragony is a conservative. He is scared of any change he might not understand. He knows that in his country he has ready access to drugs and has little or no danger of legal penalty for taking them. Beyond that he doesn't really care, so doesn't want any change in the law or culture of his country.

Me a conservative that's kinda funny, has a bit of a 'you can't come to my party ' ring to it that's why. Very fail imho

Edit, on seecond thought you might be right

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-14-2011, 17:00
Fragony is a conservative. He is scared of any change he might not understand. He knows that in his country he has ready access to drugs and has little or no danger of legal penalty for taking them. Beyond that he doesn't really care, so doesn't want any change in the law or culture of his country.

Maybe it's the Liberals are scared, that the "wrong" thing will be banned? Cuts both ways, that one, Idaho.

jirisys
06-14-2011, 17:14
Maybe it's the Liberals are scared, that the "wrong" thing will be banned? Cuts both ways, that one, Idaho.

Scared? Scared of that?

Really? Liberals? How american are you.

Saying liberal is an insult to many people. And there's not just 2 groups of people.

So, I don't fit in that.

You know what? Forget it. You firmly ignore arguments put forward. You don't realize your reasons are actually the reasons FOR legalization. And you cannot simply understand that the reason people will steal for drugs, is because they're expensive, because they are prohibited.

Why don't you just go back to the 20's.

You see. Compare prohibition with the war on drugs:


The proponents of Prohibition had believed that banning alcoholic beverages would reduce or even eliminate many social problems, particularly drunkenness, crime, mental illness, and poverty. Journalist H.L. Mencken asserted in 1925 that respect for law diminished rather than increased during Prohibition, and drunkenness, crime, insanity, and resentment towards the federal government had all increased.[citation needed]Some supporters of Prohibition, such as Rev. Charles Stelzle in his 1918 book Why Prohibition!, also believed that Prohibition would eventually lead to reductions in taxes, since drinking "produced half the business" for institutions supported by tax dollars such as courts, jails, hospitals, almshouses, and insane asylums.[1] In reality, however, alcohol consumption and the incidence of alcohol-related domestic violence were decreasing before the 18th Amendment was passed. Furthermore, reformers "were dismayed to find that child neglect and violence against children actually increased during the Prohibition era."[2]

During Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry completely under the control of organized crime. Drinking in speakeasies became increasingly fashionable, and many mothers worried about the allure that alcohol and other illegal activities associated with bootlegging would have over their children.[3]

Prohibitionists argued that Prohibition would be more effective if enforcement were increased. However, increased efforts to enforce Prohibition simply resulted in the government spending more money, rather than less. The economic cost of Prohibition became especially pronounced during the Great Depression. According to Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) and Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR) literature, an estimated $861 million dollars was lost in federal tax revenue from untaxed liquor; $40 million dollars was spent annually on Prohibition enforcement.[4] The AAPA also released a pamphlet claiming that $11,000,000,000 was lost in federal liquor-tax revenue and $310,000,000 was spent on Prohibition enforcement from 1920 to 1931.[5] This lack of potential funding during a period of economic strife became a crucial part of the campaign for repeal.


It's almost identical. And they both failed.

Also, on many of your points you have many argumenta ad logicam.

~Jirisys ()

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-14-2011, 17:35
Scared? Scared of that?

Really? Liberals? How american are you.

I'm not remotely American.


Saying liberal is an insult to many people. And there's not just 2 groups of people.

Couldn't care less, I was sniping at idaho, the way he snipes at me. It's a twisted little game we play.


You know what? Forget it. You firmly ignore arguments put forward. You don't realize your reasons are actually the reasons FOR legalization. And you cannot simply understand that the reason people will steal for drugs, is because they're expensive, because they are prohibited.

Smokes are expensive too, and plently of people will steal to support a booze habit, not to mention lie and cheat their nearest and dearest. The problem is addiction, not legality.


Also, on many of your points you have many argumenta ad logicam.

~Jirisys ()

That's your big jab, my arguments rest on logic

Well, I guess you've got me there.

You have failed to engage with the actual argument at all, you seem to think that because people takes drugs they should be legal - that can be applied to any law. Make a law, and you automatically make criminals, but no one suggests decriminalising theft or rape.

The question here is cost vs benefit and right vs privilege. Given that you have refused to acknowledge that a privilege is a special right awarded to a group it's not surprising we haven't got anywhere.

All societies prohibit behaviours - and the argument "I'm not hurting anyone, leave me alone" is something I consider to be amoral and lacking in actual justification.

It is a modern invention, which has now become the excuse for anyone who wants to do anything - I would like to see some philosophical support for the view before you declare the body politic dead.

jirisys
06-14-2011, 23:57
Yet again, you disregarded my argument.

~Jirisys ()

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-15-2011, 01:27
Yet again, you disregarded my argument.

~Jirisys ()

About prohibition?

OK.... people continued to drink because it was socially acceptable, Ajax has already shown us that in societies where drugs are less socially acceptable there is less drug use. Prohibition was not in place long enough to see whether or not it was effective at changing public perception. Legalising hard drugs would inevitably reduce stigma further, so it would be bad if you want to reduce drug use.

So the problem is that drugs have become more socially acceptable while the law has remained the same.

So, you could repeal the prohibition of drugs, work to increase the stigma associated with them, or treat each drug on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I am broadly in favour of prohibition and very much in favour of anything that increases the social stigma of subjecting yourself to toxic substances that cause permenant physiological damage.

jirisys
06-15-2011, 02:07
Personally, I am broadly in favour of prohibition and very much in favour of anything that increases the social stigma of subjecting yourself to toxic substances that cause permenant physiological damage.

Why?

Will you take them? No.

Is it going to be mandatory? No.

What is really the problem? Are you scared that people will use it in the same amounts but not go to jail?

~Jirisys ()

ajaxfetish
06-15-2011, 07:17
About prohibition?

OK.... people continued to drink because it was socially acceptable, Ajax has already shown us that in societies where drugs are less socially acceptable there is less drug use. Prohibition was not in place long enough to see whether or not it was effective at changing public perception. Legalising hard drugs would inevitably reduce stigma further, so it would be bad if you want to reduce drug use.

So the problem is that drugs have become more socially acceptable while the law has remained the same.

So, you could repeal the prohibition of drugs, work to increase the stigma associated with them, or treat each drug on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I am broadly in favour of prohibition and very much in favour of anything that increases the social stigma of subjecting yourself to toxic substances that cause permenant physiological damage.

Is it just personal opinion that prohibition increases social stigma, or do you have objective evidence to back that up? I'm not at all sure it's true. In Mormon society, alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal, yet stigmatized for non-legal reasons. Tobacco has been picking up greater stigma in at least some societies (incl. America), and while that's being accompanied by a creeping increase in restrictions on the sale and advertising of tobacco, I think the stigma is driving the limited prohibition, rather than vice versa. It's my subjective opinion that marijuana is becoming less stigmatized, yet it remains as prohibited as ever. I'm not at all sure that longer-lasting prohibition would have stigmatized alcohol and lowered use, and I'm not at all convinced that continuing the 'war on drugs' will increase the stigma of illegal drugs and lower use. I'll certainly agree with you that drugs have negative effects, and that stigmatization and lower use is a positive in most if not all cases, but I don't think prohibition is the way to go about it. That has its own negative consequences, ones which can easily surpass the harm done by the drugs themselves, usually while failing miserably to eliminate that harm in the process.

Ajax

Idaho
06-15-2011, 14:15
Maybe it's the Liberals are scared, that the "wrong" thing will be banned? Cuts both ways, that one, Idaho.

I don't understand this in any dimension. I would need to know who the Liberals were, what they were scared of, what the "wrong" thing means, and why that cuts both ways. It's clear as mud to me.

Idaho
06-15-2011, 14:19
Smokes are expensive too, and plently of people will steal to support a booze habit, not to mention lie and cheat their nearest and dearest. The problem is addiction, not legality.

Yes! Exactly!

How many times are you going to support anti-prohibitionist logic and yet hang on to the idea that prohibition is effective.

I agree with you that as as society we ought to be taking less drugs. I agree that our society will be healthier and happier if we didn't have the need/desire to fill our lives with intoxicants.

I just think that prohibition DOESN'T WORK. It increases consumption, creates powerful criminal networks and criminalises people who have a health/behaviour problem.

TheLastDays
06-15-2011, 19:05
I agree with you that as as society we ought to be taking less drugs. I agree that our society will be healthier and happier if we didn't have the need/desire to fill our lives with intoxicants.

I just think that prohibition DOESN'T WORK. It increases consumption, creates powerful criminal networks and criminalises people who have a health/behaviour problem.

Agreed. There needs to be another way to decrese usage than prohibiton as we have seen over a long time it just doesn't work. Still, something needs to be done, because there are MANY people who have a problem with drugs.

Kralizec
06-15-2011, 19:25
I'm sorry - where's the problem? Intoxication would only be a right if everyone was allowed to do it, but we restrict intoxication by age and chosen substance. Only adults are allowed to intoxicate themselves, ergo it is a privilege.

This is semantic deception. Everyone has the right to drink alcohol, provided that they're legal adults. That minors can't drink is an exception to the general rule.

Or do you think that you have the privilege to vote?

a completely inoffensive name
06-16-2011, 10:06
What is with all these conservatives acting like liberals talking about changing society to make everyone less accepting of alcohol/drug use?

I mean, if half the people here are going to talking gibberish that is completely wrong, I might as well join them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-16-2011, 12:08
This is semantic deception. Everyone has the right to drink alcohol, provided that they're legal adults. That minors can't drink is an exception to the general rule.

Or do you think that you have the privilege to vote?

An uncomfortable question, but a fair one. Citizens have the right to vote in a democracy, but citizenship in it's fullest sense is quite restricted, it includes only adults over a certain age who are born in the country, have at least one parent from the country, or have passed a test saying they are fit to be a citizen.

So is citizenship a right? Or is it a privilege granted by the citizenry?


Yes! Exactly!

How many times are you going to support anti-prohibitionist logic and yet hang on to the idea that prohibition is effective.

I agree with you that as as society we ought to be taking less drugs. I agree that our society will be healthier and happier if we didn't have the need/desire to fill our lives with intoxicants.

I just think that prohibition DOESN'T WORK. It increases consumption, creates powerful criminal networks and criminalises people who have a health/behaviour problem.

I can see the argument, I just don't buy it - a lot of drugs become illegal because of rising use rates, many of the "popular" drugs, in the sense of those that the population know about, were made illegal in the '60s when drugs started to become more socially acceptable, and more widely available. My problem with legalising them is that we don't have a control group for the last 50 years telling us how much usage would have risen had they been legal. My instinct, and the evidence from the progressive bans on smoking, says that when you make something illegal most people come to view it as less socially acceptable. Reversing prohibition would, I believe, reduce stigma but wouldn't actually do much as. The black market would continue to rise because "legal" drugs wouls have to be at least as taxed as tobacco, but on the other hand it would be harder to prosecute black market dealers than it is now.

LittleGrizzly
06-17-2011, 09:09
The black market would continue to rise because "legal" drugs wouls have to be at least as taxed as tobacco, but on the other hand it would be harder to prosecute black market dealers than it is now.

I have to disagree there. Prices should be based on a range of things with harm caused being one. Something like cannabis which is only proven to cause harm when smoked with tobacco (so no proven harm from the cannabis) should be taxed much lighter than tobacco. The only argument I can think of against taxing more similar to standard products is to avoid people just smoking all day but when alcohol is so cheap anyway for a few liters of cider why should we encourage people to drink over smoke. Certainly the stoner whilst probably not particularly useful retains a lot more self control than the drunk and is far less likely to cause problems. Combine this with the fact that making weed cheaper than tobacco would remove 95% of the reason people combine tobacco with cannabis (my use of tobacco would drop dramatically)

Tobacco, Alcohol, even foods/drinks with too much sugar, salt or fat can be far worse for you than Cannabis so I don't see why they should be cheaper... consider the strain these things cause on medical services.

I would also argue some of the other light drugs are far less harmful to the individual and society as a whole than the items I listed above...

Maybe it is just me because I am hardly ever around the stuff but does anyone else find the smell of alcohol revolting ?

Fragony
06-17-2011, 10:08
And if it are low prices that do more harm than good? You just can't beat the black market at it's own game.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-17-2011, 11:06
The black market would continue to rise because "legal" drugs wouls have to be at least as taxed as tobacco, but on the other hand it would be harder to prosecute black market dealers than it is now.

I have to disagree there. Prices should be based on a range of things with harm caused being one. Something like cannabis which is only proven to cause harm when smoked with tobacco (so no proven harm from the cannabis) should be taxed much lighter than tobacco. The only argument I can think of against taxing more similar to standard products is to avoid people just smoking all day but when alcohol is so cheap anyway for a few liters of cider why should we encourage people to drink over smoke. Certainly the stoner whilst probably not particularly useful retains a lot more self control than the drunk and is far less likely to cause problems. Combine this with the fact that making weed cheaper than tobacco would remove 95% of the reason people combine tobacco with cannabis (my use of tobacco would drop dramatically)

Tobacco, Alcohol, even foods/drinks with too much sugar, salt or fat can be far worse for you than Cannabis so I don't see why they should be cheaper... consider the strain these things cause on medical services.

I would also argue some of the other light drugs are far less harmful to the individual and society as a whole than the items I listed above...

Maybe it is just me because I am hardly ever around the stuff but does anyone else find the smell of alcohol revolting ?

I think that smoking Cannabis is obviously harmful in the same way as smoking tobacco, inhaling any fumes like that is basically carcenogenic and it still has tar in it to cause you all those nasty lung problems, then you have the mental problems.

So, I think it should be taxed as heavily as tobacco.

LittleGrizzly
06-17-2011, 11:11
Even if we are talking about something highly taxed but legal like tobacco I still have far less access to it than something illegal like Cannabis. The only black market tobacco I have access too is rolling tobacco (though I did get offered cigerettes at about 50p off shop price, seen as they where Lamberts they cost more than my regular cigerettes did anyway)

If we go down to things that are taxed less heavily than tobacco I can't personally think of any sources for black market but otherwise legal goods, I am sure there is a bit of a trade in alcohol but considering the cheapness of alcohol anyway I can't imagine there is too much money in it. If we go down another level and think of caffeinated, sugary or fatty products I severely doubt there is a black market for these goods whatsoever at least not at a user level...

If Cannabis was at Tobacco prices it would destroy almost all dealers straight away, I can pay about £13 pounds and get 50 grams that is just under two ounces. If I wanted to get two ounces of Cannabis I would have pay at least £260 (that would be a cheap price for some basic skunk) I don't doubt some people may try to continue making whatever little profit they can but as the price differences show anyone dealing would have their price margins shattered...

Fragony
06-17-2011, 11:32
There we go again, why would cartels just roll over when a multi-billion market is being destroyed. It's a stupid idea

(nice to see you by the way:bow:)

Idaho
06-17-2011, 11:56
I think that smoking Cannabis is obviously harmful in the same way as smoking tobacco, inhaling any fumes like that is basically carcenogenic and it still has tar in it to cause you all those nasty lung problems, then you have the mental problems.

So, I think it should be taxed as heavily as tobacco.

You don't have to smoke it. You can eat it, or vapourise it. Then you only have the mental issues, not the lung problems.

Idaho
06-17-2011, 12:06
I can see the argument, I just don't buy it - a lot of drugs become illegal because of rising use rates, many of the "popular" drugs, in the sense of those that the population know about, were made illegal in the '60s when drugs started to become more socially acceptable, and more widely available. My problem with legalising them is that we don't have a control group for the last 50 years telling us how much usage would have risen had they been legal. My instinct, and the evidence from the progressive bans on smoking, says that when you make something illegal most people come to view it as less socially acceptable. Reversing prohibition would, I believe, reduce stigma but wouldn't actually do much as. The black market would continue to rise because "legal" drugs wouls have to be at least as taxed as tobacco, but on the other hand it would be harder to prosecute black market dealers than it is now.

Firstly most "popular" drugs were made illegal in the 1910s and 1920s (opium derivatives, cocaine, cannabis), not the 1960s. They had long been illegal by then. Some newer drugs - LSD, amphetamines - were made illegal in the 60s ('66 and '64 respectively).

Now you have the odd, but very telling, situation where drugs are made illegal based on their effects. New recreational drugs are banned because they make people high. The justification is that they may be dangerous, but then there is no follow up process to test how dangerous. Nor is there any attempt to justify existing legislation based on harm, or harm reduction. The primary message and purpose is "drugs are weird and scary".

jirisys
06-17-2011, 18:14
There we go again, why would cartels just roll over when a multi-billion market is being destroyed. It's a stupid idea

Because it's no longer a multi-billion market?

~Jirisys ()

Ice
06-18-2011, 01:51
You don't have to smoke it. You can eat it, or vapourise it. Then you only have the mental issues, not the lung problems.

It hasn't been shown to cause lung cancer. In a sweet sense of irony, it has actually been shown to have anti carcenigenic properties. If anyone wants to see the studies, I'll find them; just let me know. I'm getting the sense that a lot of people go off of talking points and never really look into the issue at hand.

Crazed Rabbit
06-18-2011, 03:07
You have failed to engage with the actual argument at all, you seem to think that because people takes drugs they should be legal - that can be applied to any law. Make a law, and you automatically make criminals, but no one suggests decriminalising theft or rape.

That's because noone is harmed by the act of consuming drugs except - maybe - the person doing the consuming.


All societies prohibit behaviours - and the argument "I'm not hurting anyone, leave me alone" is something I consider to be amoral and lacking in actual justification.

It is the only moral justification for law - to prevent people from harming other people. Anything else is the arbitrary imposition of one's personal whims on others. If it were just one person and not everyone voting, it'd be called a tyranny.


It is a modern invention, which has now become the excuse for anyone who wants to do anything - I would like to see some philosophical support for the view before you declare the body politic dead.

:rolleyes: So do you think marijuana came into existence banned? Reality is exactly opposite - it is the modern world that seeks to ban everything that could possibly be bad (trans fat, lack of seatbelts, drugs) and impose ever greater control over a person's life.


OK.... people continued to drink because it was socially acceptable, Ajax has already shown us that in societies where drugs are less socially acceptable there is less drug use. Prohibition was not in place long enough to see whether or not it was effective at changing public perception. Legalising hard drugs would inevitably reduce stigma further, so it would be bad if you want to reduce drug use.

So the problem is that drugs have become more socially acceptable while the law has remained the same.

So, you could repeal the prohibition of drugs, work to increase the stigma associated with them, or treat each drug on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I am broadly in favour of prohibition and very much in favour of anything that increases the social stigma of subjecting yourself to toxic substances that cause permenant physiological damage.

Drugs have become more socially acceptable because the ignorance and lies told and repeated by drug banners (ie Reefer Madness) have been revealed as lies.

The stigma was based on lies. To increase the stigma you'd have to work to increase the ignorance on drugs.

US alcohol prohibition was ignored because people knew the truth about alcohol.

Why does it seem drug banners hold 'drug use' figures as the one and only thing worth caring about?

CR

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-18-2011, 11:02
You don't have to smoke it. You can eat it, or vapourise it. Then you only have the mental issues, not the lung problems.

True, but post people smoke it.


Firstly most "popular" drugs were made illegal in the 1910s and 1920s (opium derivatives, cocaine, cannabis), not the 1960s. They had long been illegal by then. Some newer drugs - LSD, amphetamines - were made illegal in the 60s ('66 and '64 respectively).

Now you have the odd, but very telling, situation where drugs are made illegal based on their effects. New recreational drugs are banned because they make people high. The justification is that they may be dangerous, but then there is no follow up process to test how dangerous. Nor is there any attempt to justify existing legislation based on harm, or harm reduction. The primary message and purpose is "drugs are weird and scary".

I stand corrected - you are correct about drugs being banned for their narcotic effect, but many are dangerous


That's because noone is harmed by the act of consuming drugs except - maybe - the person doing the consuming.

Not true -addicts harm their families, their parents, their children, and they weigh down on those who love them. They harm society in general.


It is the only moral justification for law - to prevent people from harming other people. Anything else is the arbitrary imposition of one's personal whims on others. If it were just one person and not everyone voting, it'd be called a tyranny.

No, that's not a "Tyranny". There is more to morality, and freedom, than personal choice. In any case, anything negative you do hurts someone.


:rolleyes: So do you think marijuana came into existence banned? Reality is exactly opposite - it is the modern world that seeks to ban everything that could possibly be bad (trans fat, lack of seatbelts, drugs) and impose ever greater control over a person's life.

Um, you have a complete lack of historical context for that statement.


Drugs have become more socially acceptable because the ignorance and lies told and repeated by drug banners (ie Reefer Madness) have been revealed as lies.

Try "reefer stupidity", if you prefer.

a completely inoffensive name
06-18-2011, 11:29
To pretend as if drugs only have a negative effect on a singular person is not realistic for reasons that PVC just explained. But the question at the heart of it is: should the negative impacts of "free" drugs on society be considered too great compared to the repression of the individual when we try to ban them (war on drugs)?

I see no reason how you could argue that the society with the occasional family that suffers from a drug addict within their core of relatives is somehow worse off than the society with the rampant expansion of governmental power that abuses us all, unchecked, feeding off of all of our taxpayer money.

Not to mention that in that second scenario in which we find ourselves in, drug use and druggies within families is still prevalent and not at all curbed.

a completely inoffensive name
06-18-2011, 11:31
Try "reefer stupidity", if you prefer.

This is really, really, really quite wrong. It is so wrong that I feel willing right now, to send you my personal information of who I am and a plane ticket to Santa Cruz so you can meet my former floormate who lived next to me, smoked a bowl a day and came out with A's and B's in his Chem and Calc classes.

Idaho
06-18-2011, 17:15
Not true -addicts harm their families, their parents, their children, and they weigh down on those who love them. They harm society in general.

They do. But the numbers of addictions and the efficacy of treating and mitigating the effect of these addictions is adversely impacted by prohibition.

rory_20_uk
06-23-2011, 10:54
They do. But the numbers of addictions and the efficacy of treating and mitigating the effect of these addictions is adversely impacted by prohibition.

I completely agree. But then I am a pragmatist.

~:smoking:

Ronin
07-02-2011, 16:49
Portugal's 10th anniversary of drug use de-criminalization shows results experts say (http://www.france24.com/en/20110701-portugal-drug-law-show-results-ten-years-experts-say)

Fragony
07-02-2011, 17:33
Portugal's 10th anniversary of drug use de-criminalization shows results experts say (http://www.france24.com/en/20110701-portugal-drug-law-show-results-ten-years-experts-say)

Can't argue with that, way to go Portugal. It's the right way to do it just discrmininalising the end of the chain. It's basically already discrmininalised here in practise but we don't seem to have the cojonnos to be honest about it

rory_20_uk
07-03-2011, 16:11
Good they've done it. It is a repeat of the "experiment" that was common practice in the UK (free drugs from registered GPs) until we decided to join the Yanks, and oh look, problems got worse...

These results will not matter as it seems we are dealing with idealists rather than pragmatists.

~:smoking:

Moros
01-19-2012, 23:51
Don't worry the Pentagon is going to stop the war on drugs.

Blakcwater takes it over...

:skull:

http://on.rt.com/iueve7

Tellos Athenaios
01-20-2012, 00:56
On the flipside, when as is inevitable these guys will be caught out partying hard they can just claim to do their bit... by avoiding the drugs ever make it to the US.

Plus, with friends like the Colombian paramilitaries they will probably a bit more guarded. You don't tend to make it out alive, let alone in one piece if you offend them, say by driving over their families with your truck.

Vladimir
01-20-2012, 14:53
Don't worry the Pentagon is going to stop the war on drugs.

Blakcwater takes it over...

:skull:

http://on.rt.com/iueve7

I can't think of a better bunch of people to send.

CountArach
01-21-2012, 12:30
Don't worry the Pentagon is going to stop the war on drugs.

Blakcwater takes it over...

:skull:

http://on.rt.com/iueve7
Better go and win some hearts and minds...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-21-2012, 14:11
Good they've done it. It is a repeat of the "experiment" that was common practice in the UK (free drugs from registered GPs) until we decided to join the Yanks, and oh look, problems got worse...

These results will not matter as it seems we are dealing with idealists rather than pragmatists.

~:smoking:

That "experiment" did cause a precipitase rise in the number of heroin addicts over a 10 year basis, that was why it was stopped.

Moros
01-22-2012, 01:27
The rise doesn't look like a result of the experiment if you ask me. Heroin use has been rising before, during and after the experiment.