Legalisation

MikeSun5 said:
...and not to be picky, but "deutsch" is German.
Click to expand...
Oliver's German himself, so I think he knows that. Mind you, there's a fair amount of instances in the English-speaking world where the word "dutch" has been used to mean Deutsch (i.e. German and sometimes German-speaking Swiss), e.g. the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Dutch clocks."
 
Euromutt said:
Oliver's German himself, so I think he knows that. Mind you, there's a fair amount of instances in the English-speaking world where the word "dutch" has been used to mean Deutsch (i.e. German and sometimes German-speaking Swiss), e.g. the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Dutch clocks."
Click to expand...

Es tut mir sehr leid.
 
Dr Adequate said:
If this was feasible then they could do it with any commodity. Peanut butter, say. They could say: "Instead of buying peanut butter/heroin from the store --- and we'll be watching you --- you'll buy it at a higher price from us."

But, alternatively, if they were in a position to do that, they cold say: "Give us your money. No, we won't give you any peanut butter/heroin in return, because that would cut into our profits, nor will we be watching you to see if you buy any peanut butter/heroin elsewhere, because this would cut into our busy schedule of extorting money from people, and because our aim is not to prevent you from purchasing peanut butter/heroin, but rather to acquire your money."
Click to expand...

Gangs do provide a service but they are somewhat realistic about it. If they just stole everything they would lose a lot of support (by support I mean "no snitching"). What's to stop people from snitchin on a gang when said gang might kill/rob them anyway? Also with drugs there will likely be only a few places that are going to be selling it if they enact heavy regulations and age requirements. You might be able to make a better comparison with alcohol but even then gangs would have a hard time controlling something with such a wide distribution (and public acceptance). As long as the drugs (and their legal manufacturers) are tightly controlled then gangs will still have an advantage and will likely still rule in certain areas.
 
A great (short) documentary supporting the legalisation of heroin:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...i=Og9eS4WLHoGG-Aaal83QAw&q=heroin+on+the+nhs#

It seems the Swiss have a sensible policy. Any information on whether pro-legalisation people have cherry picked the good news coming out of Switzerland's initiative?

How hard would it be to pass such legislation in other countries like the UK or the US, Australia, Canada etc?
 
Last edited:
ha! In Canada?

We'd have to get the Conservatives out of the driver's seat first. Before they halted parliament early (killing all pending legislation) they had a suite of "tough on crime" measures ready, including a mandatory minimum for growing ONE pot plant.

I interviewed a Liberal MP in high school (~1998) for a project on decriminalization/legalization and he was predicting it would happen in "ten years".

Well, Chrétien had it pending but the Bush admin was appalled and leaned heavily on us to reduce the amounts that would be decriminalized: one ounce of weed went down to 20 grams, and bizarrely, hash was reduced to 2 grams. I still can't figure out why the disparity between hash and weed... Since I usually buy by the ounce I figured it would be strange to have to order 20 grams to "stay legal". I dont think they realize that regular smokers buy in ounces or more and use it all for personal consumption.

In any event, that legislation died when Chrétien called an early summer, and yes, all pending legislation died.

Interestingly, Mexico decriminalized all drugs lately and when they tried that around the same time as we tried to do it with pot Bush screamed blue murder and got Fox to intervene to prevent it coming to a floor vote. They succeeded in passing identical legislation last year and Obama's government, admirably, did nothing. I'd just love to hear the American reaction to foreign governments pressuring them on domestic legislation: "don't tread on us" comes to mind.

Trudeau was our PM for a long time and the issue of pot decriminalization/legalization came up and he set up a Royal Commission, the Le dain Commission, to look into it and all drug laws. He said he would abide by whatever they decided.

Well they decided that decriminalization/legalization was the right way to go.

And I guess Trudeau forgot his promise. Anyway, this has been on the agenda for decades. I expect one day it will come to pass given how close it has come, its just our current conservatives are little retrograde on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
Until you can empirically prove this, I don't see why we should enact your idea into policy.
Click to expand...
While I was being somewhat sarcastic, I am also being somewhat practical.

What I have learned over the years about addicitve behavior is that there is a predisposition to some of it, and an acclimation to it via imitative behavior and experimentation. (Know more about alcohol addiction as that is what I have dealt with most, in terms of trying to help a few people not destroy themselves).

Whether addiction is a social/psychological pathology, or a more mechanical predisposition, it all apparently boils down to physics. (Standard JREF meme about drilling down to root causes there).

So I am only half joking.

It makes sense to me to let the self-poisoners finish the job they started, if they won't accept the offer of assistance to stop poisoning themselves. I have always held that people ought to be allowed to go to Hell, or Heaven, in their own manner, so long as they don't take anyone else along with them.

You want to shoot smack? Shoot it. It's gonna kill you. There are people who can help you stop doing this.

You still want to shoot smack? Hope you packed for your journey.

DR
 
kevinquinnyo said:
Is this a joke?

You sound a bit like that guy, what's his name? The one that talked about systematic elimination of weak strains in the genetic pool?
Click to expand...

I ought to sound to you like Denis Leary, who has a nice comedy routine about drug addicts that I borrowed this little bon mot from, as inspiration.

See "No Cure for Cancer" CD, or "Lock and Load" for the reference.

Oh, and you can stuff your Godwin where the sun don't shine.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
It makes sense to me to let the self-poisoners finish the job they started, if they won't accept the offer of assistance to stop poisoning themselves. I have always held that people ought to be allowed to go to Hell, or Heaven, in their own manner, so long as they don't take anyone else along with them.

You want to shoot smack? Shoot it. It's gonna kill you. There are people who can help you stop doing this.

You still want to shoot smack? Hope you packed for your journey.

DR
Click to expand...

As someone who has worked with heroin addicts on and off for the last two years, I can tell you that you appear to be, I'm afraid to say, grossly uneducated about it. Heroin use becomes a physical dependancy (In part due to the horrific side effects once you stop), essentially obliterating any cries to 'snap out of it'. 'Want' is the operative word. They don't 'want' to shoot smack, their body needs to shoot smack.

To show so little understanding and compassion towards people who -in the large part- are attempting to block out sexual/physical abuse and/or extreme trauma seems to betray your Christian principles of love and all the other cheesy stuff. Most of the people who suffer from this dependancy didn't have the oppurtunities you and I had/have in life, and it is worth dwelling on that.

And seeing how heaven and hell don't exist, and this is their only shot (no pun intended) at life, it makes sense to help them improve their lives, trying out pragmatic (and realistic) ways of achieving this like the Swiss are doing.
 
Last edited:
"The argument in favor of regulating drugs is not that they're harmless, but rather that they're so dangerous they should be controlled by the government. Remember that under prohibition the government has no control. It's the violent drug dealer who decides the price, purity, cutting agents, advertising methods, business location and hours of operation."

- David Bratzer, Canadian police officer and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
 
Darth Rotor said:
You might want to consult the medical impact of sustained use of those chemicals. Not your brightest comment ever.

DR
Click to expand...

Oh really, they have medical impacts?

Trust me guy, I've done the research. I think you're taking my statement for an absolute when it was an argument for nuance: not only must we worry about health effects, but the economic issues that are exarcerbated by high prices, which increase crime as addicts must committ more crime to be able to afford the next fix.

That's been a part of the sociology of drugs for some time, and is there if you care to look, old man... ;)
 
According to numbers of government studies (GAO, other agencies) drugs are generally available throughout the country, in high states of purity, at low prices.

If this is indeed the case, we might be justified in assuming that most all the people who wish to consume drugs are now doing so.
Broad-spectrum legalization might cause some increase; experimenters or those who avoid drugs out of fear, but how large a population might that be?

Also, I would like to see any attempt at legalization (or at least, de-criminalization) accompanied by some large-scale research as to the cause. Why do people need to intoxicate themselves?
Is a certain percentage of the population wired in this way? Is it (as I suspect) that depression is more widespread among the population than is generally acknowledged, and that a significant portion of users are simply self-medicating?

Our efforts have been almost totally geared to enforcement and interdiction. Let's find out why people are using.
 
This CATO institute report on Portugal's experience showed no increase in usage after decriminalization, which is a different thing than legalisation:

Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically.​
Still, the penalty for possession has been removed pretty much, and that didn't open the floodgates.

I am skeptical of claims that there is a cohort of heroin users just waiting for legalization/decriminalization to start shooting up. Methinks that the drug is of such a type, and the typical method of ingestion so scary (though you can smoke or snort it) that the large majority of people arent interested in it regardless of its legal status.
 
My theory: drug use is social. People rarely end up doing drugs that their friends or people they know aren't already doing. This is why alcohol and tobacco use are so widespread - socially speaking they are the most common drugs to use and people will have opportunities to try some of each with their friends and they will see friends they like and respect doing them so they will feel more comfortable doing it themselves. They form the center of many social gatherings from the "at work smoke break" crew to the dinner parties where wine and beer may figure prominently.

The reason why we won't see the floodgates open for heroin and cocaine and other illicit drugs under a decriminalization/legalization rubric is because most people lack the social prerequisites to trying those drugs. They lack access cause they dont have a friend who can get them the drug or clear their name with a dealer. THey aren't interested because nobody they know does them and the drugs never make appearances at their social gatherings. They don't see people they like and respect doing them.

The worst that would happen would be, in my opinion, an "imaginary increase". Under a decriminalization/legalization rubric individuals may be more likely to answer "yes" to having tried various drugs in surveys since the legal and social stigma of doing these drugs is lessened. So we might see an apparent bump in popular underground drugs like marijuana and ecstasy but would it be "real"? Or simply an artifact of more people coming out of the closet? I think there is likely some underreporting going on for drug use under the current legal environment.
 
Last edited:
Policenaut said:
We should legalize them. I don't think it will lead to a mass of new drug users. As I said before pretty much anyone now who wants to use drugs can and will get their fix. I don't believe there are hundreds of thousands or millions of people out there who want to try drugs but don't because it's illegal. Also though I don't think legalizing it will have as big an effect on gangs as you might think. These gangs are all violent and are only out there for money (and respect). If you think this is going to shut them down and they are going to go without a fight you're wrong. Maybe it'll make all the suburban recreational drug users go buy it legally but it will be business as usual in the poor areas of the country.
Click to expand...

One of the appeals of gangs in inner cities is that the gangs have money. They get the money largely be selling drugs. While I don't think criminals will stop being criminals because drugs are legalized, legalizing drugs would reduce the incentive to become a criminal in the first place, as selling illegal drugs is one of the easiest criminal activities in which to make serious money.
 
CORed said:
One of the appeals of gangs in inner cities is that the gangs have money. They get the money largely be selling drugs. While I don't think criminals will stop being criminals because drugs are legalized, legalizing drugs would reduce the incentive to become a criminal in the first place, as selling illegal drugs is one of the easiest criminal activities in which to make serious money.
Click to expand...

Well it would just shift things around a bit. As there is an underground trade in oxycontin, im sure some would still sell for the convenience factor (oh hes right on the corner) and cause well, thats what they're used to doing. Will take a while for people to change tracks.

But yes, would be a huge hit to organized crime. Thing is, there's still plenty of other areas to earn money that street gangs will use:

- prostitution
- people smuggling
- extortion and protection rackets
- gambling
- gun running

They wont go away - they'll still have plenty of places to earn a buck, and the appeal to inner city kids looking for a way to make a buck in places where legal means to do so are scarce will still find their way to the gangs.
 
Laeke said:
The illegal market is bound by no regulations (free market!) and I guess there are some costs induced by the unlawful aspect of it.
Click to expand...

Not a free market: You say as much in the first sentence, with the key word being illegal. This of course limits the amount of supply to only those willing to engage in unlawful activity, the risk/burden of which is passed onto the consumer because no one wants to take that kind of risk without getting paid well for it. Also, there are no property rights for government to enforce. Moreover, the government would be inclined to take your property.

To answer the OP: In America, it would need to be sold as a way to reduce government spending, and a way for states to shift taxation policies (tax formerly illegal drugs while lowering taxes on income, property, etc). It probably wouldn't be successful, mind you, because the counter -- the label of "Soft On Crime" has ended more political careers than maybe any other.
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand that in a country that loves to bandy about the word "freedom" that the argument that anti-drug laws represent an infringement on personal liberty hasn't found more support.

After all, we're talking about the right to control our own minds and bodies here - is there something more fundamental to "freedom" than that?

Anyway, I like these guys: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/
 
gumboot said:
The only thing in common with the various illegal drugs is that they're illegal. To lump them together is nonsensical. So while I'd be quite open to legalising or decriminalising cannabis, you'd have a hard time convincing me that doing the same for methamphetamine was a good idea.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my opinions on the matter. There is no reason to piggyback decriminalizing/legalizing meth if you want to do so with, say, cannabis. The two drugs are so sharply different in terms of behavior impairments, behavior while on the drugs, chemical harm, and addictive properties. It makes no sense. Each drug should stand or fall on its own merits.

Furthermore, I don't even like the piggyback that some have taken in regards to possible medicinal properties of cannabis as a reason to legalize it for the general public. It's the equivalent of saying "morphine helps people with pain, so it should be legalized for general use." Absolutely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom