War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

[Tellos Athenaios]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ice]

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.

[Prince Cobra]

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?

[phonicsmonkey]

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]

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]

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 .

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 and a local businessman decided to import and distribute it in your town under licence from government.

[Slyspy]

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]

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?

[Ice]

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/arti...5559-1,00.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]

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.