Legalisation

[Euromutt]

Regarding the questions posed in the OP, a point that needs to be made is that there is a fair amount of research out there that indicates that chemical dependency is more a function of the user than of the drug. Research for the Dutch ministry of justice, for example, found that there are chronic, heavy users of cannabis, who could, for all practical purposes, fairly be described as addicts. However, the study found that such persons also tend to be heavy and chronic users of other vices; alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc.

Another study found that patients recovering from surgery who were allowed to self-administer morphine to treat post-operative pain were overall quite capable of stopping the use of morphine once they had no more pain. This in spite of the fact that morphine (like most opiates) is widely regarded to be highly addictive.

If drugs are legalized, will more people start using them? Most likely, yes. But these are the people who are currently not using them because of their illegal status, and it seems reasonable to surmise that such people are unlikely to become problem users. People who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, are in all likelihood the ones already using.

Very likely, moreover, these new drug users would shy away from the more physiologically harmful drugs like crack and meth. Indeed, we have to wonder whether crack and meth would retain their appeal, since these are cheap drugs that primarily appeal to people who can't afford the good stuff, or don't have the connections to get it. But why would you keep buying crack if you can get quality-tested cocaine at the liquor store for the same price that crack commands now?

 

[Laeke]

Thank you Euromutt for the welcome.

Ah those pesky alcohol & tobacco. Quite a thorn on the side of any anti-drug stance, isn't it.

When I typed my first reply, I left them out of the equation because I tend to consider their legal status as "anomalies". Basically, one would say they are legal out of tradition or force of habit. "I was there first so I'm special"... but even that doesn't make much sense, as tobacco has not been around that long (as a massive consumption item).
We gave up on fixing those, which I guess is a good example of how incoherent humans can be.

I am by no mean a specialist (you will hear that often from me), so I cannot argue about studies regarding the effects of different drugs. As a regular Joe, I grew up in a world where illegal-drug addiction has been portrayed as stronger and more spectacular than your regular legal-vice stuff. Of course, I know this has been heavily mis-represented, anti-drug messages favoring the blunt force of a gross simplification over long detailed sensible approach to the question.

So I make perfect sense, if you consider alcohol and tobacco do not exist.

I would tend to agree with gumboot about the worries about rampant drug usage that may be justified, if one looks at current legal drugs (including medication).

 

[Euromutt]

Like how all those alcohol-making gangs during prohibition now steal alcohol and sell it cheaper... oh wait.

There are still moonshiners in the US, of course, and their product is run from the backwoods to the inner cities, where it sells at half the price of legal booze. Meanwhile, in Britain, cigarette smuggling has been a political issue for a while. Both of which go to show that "sin taxes" have a threshold above which would-be users will resort to the illicit stuff.

But to my knowledge, there's no violence involved in the black alcohol and tobacco markets to the extent that there is with drugs.

 

[MikeSun5]

Like how all those alcohol-making gangs during prohibition now steal alcohol and sell it cheaper... oh wait.

Legalising drugs probably wouldn't have an affect on gangs that make them, but if you legalise the drugs companies will begin investing in mass production with high quality equipment, and the superior quality product, being sold cheaper, would quickly bring ruin to drug-based gangs.

Seconding what Euromutt said about moonshiners, and if you go pretty much anywhere in Holland today, there are still guys who sell weed on the street.
Anyway, my point is that gangs are not going anywhere, because gangs are not in business to make and sell drugs. Gangs are in business to make quick money. If drugs were legalized, the "drug-based" gangs would just find new ways to do that.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There are still moonshiners in the US, of course, and their product is run from the backwoods to the inner cities, where it sells at half the price of legal booze. Meanwhile, in Britain, cigarette smuggling has been a political issue for a while. Both of which go to show that "sin taxes" have a threshold above which would-be users will resort to the illicit stuff.

But to my knowledge, there's no violence involved in the black alcohol and tobacco markets to the extent that there is with drugs.

See, this is the thing about legalisation. Even if there is a huge increase in drug use, and a higher % of the population are addicts, it can still be treated as a health problem, rather than a crime problem. It may be a debate on which the government can control better, but I dare say it is the former.

Seconding what Euromutt said about moonshiners, and if you go pretty much anywhere in Holland today, there are still guys who sell weed on the street.

In my experience they have only been selling crack or pills, not weed (I should know, I had to stop one to ask for directions once!). But they do seem to be everywhere.

 

[Euromutt]

Seconding what Euromutt said about moonshiners, and if you go pretty much anywhere in Holland today, there are still guys who sell weed on the street.

True, at least in major cities. But while your average street dealer sells cannabis cheaper than the established "coffee shops" there's no quality control; you might be getting a real deal, but it could be adulterated crap. Even so, there's no turf battles over the street cannabis trade, unlike other drugs.

 

[Praktik]

As a long time pot smoker I have yet to come across adulterated pot.

Now I don't doubt it happens but issues of cost always arise: what would you adulterate it with? Cocaine/crystal and harder drugs would just add to the cost. Plus you can tell right away from the taste if someone has put a chemical powder in with the weed: it tastes and smells completely different (I know this from having "adulterated" on purpose in university).

My cousins in winnipeg were talking about kids spraying their weed with RAID for a better buzz - which may have been a country thing cause they lived out in the stix.

But seriously - I'm just not sure how often weed is adulterated with anything in Canada.

Is it more common in the states?

My hunch would be that it is imagined to have been done a lot more often than it really has been. Other drugs - heroin/crystal/coke even hash - because of the nature of the substances and for financial incentive they're "cut" a lot more often, but usually this is to dilute and profit. Ecstasy may be adulterated with crystal for a bit of extra "pep".

So maybe its the fact that its common with these substances that people assume it is done with pot to the same degree?

 

[gumboot]

If drugs are legalized, will more people start using them? Most likely, yes. But these are the people who are currently not using them because of their illegal status, and it seems reasonable to surmise that such people are unlikely to become problem users. People who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, are in all likelihood the ones already using.

I fail to see how you could possibly claim the above assumption is reasonable.

There's quite clearly a large number of people who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, who restrict their consumption to legal products.

 

[gumboot]

We gave up on fixing those, which I guess is a good example of how incoherent humans can be.

It's probably worth pointing out that in most of the world the use of tobacco is increasingly being restricted, and I can see a time when some places will ban it outright.

 

[Laeke]

It's probably worth pointing out that in most of the world the use of tobacco is increasingly being restricted, and I can see a time when some places will ban it outright.

Good point.
For some reason, those bans-from-certain-places are not so bothersome as you would think (Yeah I'm a nicotine addict). Still don't see tobacco banned completely in our lifetime (or peace, for that matter). Alcohol is here to stay though.

I think there might be other practical problems out of legalisation we might miss. Is violence linked to drugs just a mere consequence of their illegal status? Addicts looking for money to buy off drugs? Should there be limits and regulations of what you could buy? A monitoring system? Driving offenses maybe, which are already bad as they are with just alcohol and prescription drugs? Risks of bad mix-up (alcohol + certain medecine)? And what about the thermite? I'm just asking questions

[Sidenote: I don't except anyone to answer all of that thoroughly, just pointing out some things that were not brought up, if i am not mistaken]

I know the argument is that illegal users are already driving or being aggressive, but I definitely agree with gumboot that legalisation would largely increase the number of users. And no matter the amount of prevention and pedagogy applied, I have little faith in all users acting responsable. I mean... I have a big "SMOKING KILLS" on the pack standing at my right. Those signs bothered me maybe two weeks, but it sure didn't stop me.

 

[MikeSun5]

I think there might be other practical problems out of legalisation we might miss. Is violence linked to drugs just a mere consequence of their illegal status? Addicts looking for money to buy off drugs? Should there be limits and regulations of what you could buy? A monitoring system? Driving offenses maybe, which are already bad as they are with just alcohol and prescription drugs? Risks of bad mix-up (alcohol + certain medecine)? And what about the thermite? I'm just asking questions

You bring up some interesting points. I personally think that the violence surrounding drugs is most definitely linked to their illegal status. Look at the prohibition of alcohol in the US. Violence and corruption over alcohol subsided after the laws were repealed. The gangs didn't subside - they just found different ways to make their money (what happens in Vegas...)
I think the legalization of all drugs would probably not be a great idea. Criminals would just look elsewhere for money. Some stuff needs to stay on the street where it belongs. I say they distinguish between hard and soft drugs like the Netherlands, regulate and sell the soft drugs, and treat addicts of the hard ones. Punish those who make and sell crack, meth, and the like, but quit filling up prisons with lowly addicts who need treatment.

 

[Euromutt]

I fail to see how you could possibly claim the above assumption is reasonable.

There's quite clearly a large number of people who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, who restrict their consumption to legal products.

Okay, let me rephrase that: insofar as new users of currently illegal drugs would be problem users, they are people who are already inclined towards substance abuse, and whether they abuse cocaine or heroin, or instead abuse alcohol or some other legal product makes little difference. So the point I'm trying to make is that legalizing recreational pharmaceuticals may cause new users of those drugs, including problem users of those drugs, but it won't create a significant number of problem users who weren't already inclined to abuse something.

 

[gumboot]

I think there might be other practical problems out of legalisation we might miss. Is violence linked to drugs just a mere consequence of their illegal status? Addicts looking for money to buy off drugs? Should there be limits and regulations of what you could buy? A monitoring system? Driving offenses maybe, which are already bad as they are with just alcohol and prescription drugs? Risks of bad mix-up (alcohol + certain medecine)? And what about the thermite? I'm just asking questions

This is quite true, and your first point is a good one; much of the negative image of drugs relates to the illegal underground activities associated with drug production and selling. Presumably if it were legal this sort of thing would stop to some degree.

However it does raise another point. Often in these sorts of discussions I see people simply talking about "legalising drugs" and referring to all banned substances as a single entity. Often the least harmful of drugs will then be held up to justify legalising all of them. Alternatively people will cite the worst drugs and use them as justification for banning all drugs.

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.

 

[gumboot]

Okay, let me rephrase that: insofar as new users of currently illegal drugs would be problem users, they are people who are already inclined towards substance abuse, and whether they abuse cocaine or heroin, or instead abuse alcohol or some other legal product makes little difference.

Well that's the crux of it though, isn't it. Does it make little difference? I think it can make a huge difference. For example someone who uses alcohol for their substance abuse is far more likely to do harm to society than someone who uses cannabis for their substance abuse. And someone who chooses methamphetamine for their substance abuse will do even more harm than alcohol.

These various substances, legal and illegal, are quite clearly very different, the effects of each are different, and the consequences of long term use are different.

 

[Praktik]

Good points all - one thing I'll mention having visited San Andres, a Colombian island just north of the mainland in the caribbean, is that coke there was 5$ american a gram.

Now it was illegal, but proximity to the source kept costs way down. Addicts or just frequent users there wouldnt have to do much to keep their habit going, a regular job would do.

One of the reasons cocaine and heroine are so damaging is because of the price.

Now its true that crack is cheap and is quite destructive - so this isn't to say that price is the only or even the most important factor - but the point remains that illegality raises the price of the drugs, which for the impoverished, means doing more "stuff" to get their fix - whether that means hustling, stealing car stereos or selling their bodies.

Rendering them legal but controlled would at least help mitigate some of this harm.

 

[Laeke]

I re-read the opening post and the question is: if we had the evidence that legalisation wouldn't be more harmful to society, how do we sell it to the people?

However I think we mainly discussed the question of whether or not it was more harmful. I think that is because if one had the evidence, he could argue it fairly convincigly to begin with
Due to the illegal aspect of it, it is hard to have hard facts on anything.
And there is certainly some "irrational" or moral aspect to the thing that would make it hard for the public to consider it, but that is another problem I guess.

Praktik mentions crack, which is notoriously nocive, but isn't crack a cheaper version of cocaine? One could say the legalisation of cocaine could undermine the crack usage, provided the price is lower.

So here's another barrage of questions, because I lack any sort of competence to answer, so the best I can do is providing you with angles to chew at, about the practical issues.

Would legalisation lower prices? The illegal market is bound by no regulations (free market!) and I guess there are some costs induced by the unlawful aspect of it.
I can understand the logic there. But legal recreational drugs would probably come with vice taxes of some sort (to help pay the medical costs that would generate drugs). Drug sellers would have to be somewhat competent I guess.
For a frame of reference: Do we have some sort of study/evidence about the legal price of cannabis in Holland compared to illegal ones?

Who would manufacture the legal drugs? We have no shortage of pharma companies who would love making a buck of it, I guess. But currently we have a whole chain of production which is held by de facto criminals. We talked about the street gangs, at the end of the line, but the biggest players in the drug market are not them. Would we have to deal with Escobar-Warlord-type like people to get this rolling?
For a frame of reference: What happened during the prohibition for legal alcohol manufacturers? Did they resume production at the end of the prohibition like if nothing happened?

 

[Oliver]

I like the Netherlands' approach.

Same here. Of course, the dutch [deutsch] people are a bunch of socialistic comrades with no clue whatsoever about the American way of opposing rationalism.

 

[Euromutt]

Same here. Of course, the dutch [deutsch] people are a bunch of socialistic comrades with no clue whatsoever about the American way of opposing rationalism.

You haven't met many Dutch Christian Democrats, have you? Let alone members of the fringe hard-core gereformeerde parties.

 

[MikeSun5]

Same here. Of course, the dutch [deutsch] people are a bunch of socialistic comrades with no clue whatsoever about the American way of opposing rationalism.

All of them, huh? Whatever, I'll take a socialist over an IDer any day.

...and not to be picky, but "deutsch" is German.

 

[Dr Adequate]

They have a stranglehold in the ghettos and rule by fear. Would you take the chance of buying drugs in a store when a gang member or lookouts could see you and take out revenge for not buying drugs from them?

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."