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

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yet again, you disregarded my argument.

~Jirisys ()

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

[Idaho]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ronin]

Portugal's 10th anniversary of drug use de-criminalization shows results experts say