Drugs- Prohibition or not

[welsh]

Hot damn! The War on Drugs or-

Should we prohibit or shouldn't we.

Something of a discussion here-

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13905530&source=hptextfeature

article?

And an intemperate defence of prohibition

Cardoso calls for new thinking

EVER since George Bush senior launched “the war on drugs” in earnest two decades ago, Latin American governments have been more or less willing belligerents. That was partly because of the carrot and stick of American aid and bullying, but mainly because they suffer the brunt of the violence and corruption inflicted by trafficking mafias. Yet now there are signs of a rethink.

Ok. Fair enough. Latin American countries are suffering the carrot and stick of US aid and bullying. US policy has been frequently about targetting supply and less about dealing wtih demand. Fair enough.

Why? That's a good question. Perhaps because its hard to look a crack junkie in the face and realize that the reason why he exists is because, in part, of what we've done to him.

The clearest came in February when the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, a group headed by three former presidents—Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico—published a report arguing that the violent crime and corruption generated by drug prohibition is undermining democracy and that the drug war has “failed”. They called for a public debate on alternatives, including treating drug use as an issue of public health rather than criminal law, and decriminalising marijuana.

Oh ba! a debate! This should be fun!
And I think its fair to say that the War on Drugs has contributed to violent crime and corruption.

But can we really say that crime and corruption are the result of the war on drugs? Or merely that the war on drugs increases those problems?

Decriminalize Pot? --- Ok, I am sympathetic but still not convinced. Sorry pot head supporters out there- I think there is evidence that many people become addicted (if habituated) to pot smoking.

Treat drug use as a public health concern- I am with that.

This approach is gaining adherents. At least one minister in Brazil’s government agreed with the report. Even as it battles the drug gangs, Mexico has decided that people caught with small amounts of drugs should be treated rather than prosecuted.

Which makes sense. One of the reasons that the US has been adopting drug courts.

Argentina and Ecuador are considering more radical decriminalisation. Mr Cardoso, who has retired from political office, has since gone further than the commission and called for the decriminalisation of cocaine. He says that many active politicians privately agree with him. And in the United States, the Obama administration has signalled a shift away from drug “war” and mass incarceration and towards policies that treat drugs as a health issue.

Is this a sign of smart leadership? Or an insidious effort to get our children stoned?

This fracture in the taboo on questioning drug prohibition seems to have rattled Antonio Maria Costa, the boss of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. In his preface to the annual World Drug Report, released this week, he concedes that drug users need “medical help not criminal retribution”.

Ok, so a more careful approach perhaps?

But he also implies that proponents of drug legalisation—who include The Economist—are really seeking fresh sources of tax revenue to rescue failed banks. (No, Mr Costa, to pay for drug treatment and education.)

Maybe not banks, but... by making drugs legal wouldn't we also likely see an increase in addicts, and thus an increase in the cost of care? Aren't we allowing.. more social spending on rehabilitation, perhaps even contributing to the problem?

Grotesquely, he equates legalising drugs and human trafficking. (Drugs primarily harm the user whereas trafficking harms others.) He claims legalisation would “unleash a drug epidemic in the developing world”.

Which actually makes sense. To have a good public health system, you need states capable of implementing real policies, undertaking planning, and with the financial capacity to fund such efforts.

These are elements generally lacking in much of the developing world.

The question is really- will you have more or less drug related crime?

(That is what prohibition is achieving, because the criminal gangs it generates in developing countries have started supplying their local markets.) He smears his critics as “pro-drug” (as absurd as suggesting he is “pro-crime”). This kind of hysteria smacks of an organisation that is not just losing an unwinnable war but losing the argument.

Perhaps. But is broad legalization the answer?

Ok, Libertarians, i know you will make the "all civil rights are good?" but let's also ask a simple questions- "would legalization also lead to increased addiction and crime related to that addiction."

If addiction is a public health problem for a society, is allowing more addiction really something a government should support?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr021109lar.cfm
http://drugsanddemocracy.org/files/2009/02/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf

 

[Sander]

Oh ba! a debate! This should be fun!
And I think its fair to say that the War on Drugs has contributed to violent crime and corruption.

But can we really say that crime and corruption are the result of the war on drugs? Or merely that the war on drugs increases those problems?

Decriminalize Pot? --- Ok, I am sympathetic but still not convinced. Sorry pot head supporters out there- I think there is evidence that many people become addicted (if habituated) to pot smoking.

I'd say that keeping pot criminal in the USA specifically is delusional given the amount of people that actually use. It is a commonplace drug, and while it may be addictive (no more so than alcohol), it is certainly less destructive than alcohol.
The reason that alcohol is not criminal is because it is too ingrained in society to make outlawing it useful - it just creates a lucrative criminal market.
I think the same is true for pot.

Maybe not banks, but... by making drugs legal wouldn't we also likely see an increase in addicts, and thus an increase in the cost of care? Aren't we allowing.. more social spending on rehabilitation, perhaps even contributing to the problem?

Data on this is inconclusive.
But one would think not. The availability could compensate for the loss of illegal allure.
It's also telling that the US has the highest percentage of pot smokers in the world, even though it is very criminal.

Mind you, this may not work for all drugs as some are more vicious than others. But simply locking up people because they do drugs seems inhumane.
The problem is that treating it as a sole health problem removes the very large negative incentive of jail time as a real risk. And incentives do work.

Which actually makes sense. To have a good public health system, you need states capable of implementing real policies, undertaking planning, and with the financial capacity to fund such efforts.

These are elements generally lacking in much of the developing world.

The question is really- will you have more or less drug related crime?

In the countries we are talking about here, the ones that actually produce the drugs, wouldn't we rather see the drug industry grow into a matured and legal industry, and hence reducing the crime on the long term (although a transitional period might increase it for a while)?

Perhaps. But is broad legalization the answer?

Ok, Libertarians, i know you will make the "all civil rights are good?" but let's also ask a simple questions- "would legalization also lead to increased addiction and crime related to that addiction."

If addiction is a public health problem for a society, is allowing more addiction really something a government should support?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr021109lar.cfm
http://drugsanddemocracy.org/files/2009/02/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf

I think that there's a big problem with lumping in drugs like marijuana and LSD with drugs like crack and heroin. There's a very fundamental difference between the two, and I don't think they can be treated the same way.

 

[welsh]

@ Sander-

WHile I agree that pot use is large in the US, I suspect that most marijuana users give it up by their mid twenties as they grow up. They may party from time to time, but middle aged pot use is largely something that exists in movies like Tao of Steve or Pineapple Express.


The "Pot is no more destructive than alcohol" argument doesn't really hold up. Alcohol is bad enough. Addition to alcohol does cause damage, is probably worse on the body than grass, and probably leads to more deaths through accidents or gun shots, but pot also causes its share of deaths.

I will also agree that marijuana remained illegal because it was used by minorities and fringe members of society when prohibition was passed. Such groups were easier to repress. Furthermore, propaganda helped make the sale.

The question is not which is worse, but "do two wrongs make a right."

If you have X amoung of deaths to alcohol, are you getting a better result if its X + Y and Y is a number > 0?

As for the "allure" - I think there is little evidence on this. IN fact, this might be the wrong time to allow marijuana because the evidence I have seen is that less kids are using drugs than a generation ago. So the allure argument is actually working against pot. Other drugs too.

One of the problems is that the legalization of drugs means, for a lot of people, legalizing marijuana. Frankly, I don't much care about that.

What worries me is legalizing heroin and cocaine- hard drugs.

The issue of whether treating drug use as merely a health issue was raised when my class (on this) thought about drug court. Negative reinforcement does work- as you point out. But there should be a difference or some way of keeping non-violent drug offenders out of jail.

As for the drug industry- fuck 'em. I don't trust them and never have. If we didn't have a drug industry, we wouldn't have had the heroin or cocaine problems we have. The drug industry took advantage of absent regulation to get millions of people addicted. Fuck em.

That said, I suspect that the distribution of legalized drugs containing opiates is, in fact, an effort to legalize drugs. If you can get your opiates through a prescription than from the corner dealer, wouldn't you?

That you'd have major drug industries become legal through the selling of highly addictive drugs doesn't seem to me a good way to for those countries to economically develop into more prosperous industries. Rather, it would make the owners rich at the expense of large populations of middle and lower classes who bear the costs of those large profits with their addictions.

Is it better to deal with drugs as a criminal issue or to increase the number of addicts in the population.

And let's be fair- every time that you legalize a highly addictive drug, you have an increase in the size of the addict population. This was true in Switzerland and UK and pretty sure the Netherlands as well. Over the long-term, you may see modest drops in the addict population, but the cost is an increase in experimentation and addiction.

As for the difference between marijuana (soft drugs) and hard drugs like crack, cocaine, heroin- yes, I agree.

To me marijuana legalization is a lot like legalizing alcohol. But the other drugs- that's scary shit.

 

[Brother None]

but pot also causes its share of deaths.

Hey Nelly. What? I have never heard of a single instance where pot either caused or contribute to a mortality. Hey, here's FBI director Robert Mueller, saying pot never killed anyone

 

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

if anything should be illegal it should be Cigarettes and Alcohol, they actually kill people, pot doesn't, and the medical benefits are too big to ignore (I'm a medicinal marijuana user myself).

 

[AskWazzup]

The only solution for this problem, in developing countries, is a long term one, and that's increasing general life quality and funding on education. When most of the population is living in the slums, with no jobs, or education, it's kind of naive to think that one could get rid of this problem with a quick fix.

Of course that's an obligatory task in any case, but i don't think that there are any other viable means to fight the drug problem. Force doesn't work against it, you have to develop culturaly to bypass it.

 

[Black]

Some drugs are used as medical treatments- I don't see why at least those shouldn't be legalized.
And this whole war on drugs fucking stinks with hypocrisy. Drugs are bad for you so we won't legalize them, but cigarettes and alcohol are okay?
Go to hell all of you.

 

[lasix9]

Ah, drug prohibition. What to say. I live in a wonderful little meth town (I swear to god like... 25% of the town is fucked up). I honestly go with the idea of "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs. I think the legalization of a few of the more benign drugs in our society (pot and alcohol for instance) versus something like heroin and... well, meth, is not the worst thing for us.

While most all people get fucked up on the hard drugs, I've met countless stoners (and even a few LSD users) who need merely keep their addictions in check. Much harder to do with stuff like heroin.

I dunno. Just how I see it I guess. When it comes to the "war on drugs" I think we've spent too much for too little return. I'm betting America has spent a trillion by now on the war on drugs. Yet cartels still find a customer in us.

Meh, seems a little... counter-productive? As stated above, I do wish we would address it as a health concern as opposed to a concern of law and "safety".

 

[Radwaster]

Interesting article on this very subject right here:

http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/

In the case of cocaine, there is an even more striking precedent for evidence being ignored: during the early 1990s the World Health Organisation conducted what is probably the largest ever study of global cocaine use. In March 1995 they released a briefing kit which summarised their conclusions, with some tantalising bullet points.

“Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use,” they said. “Few experts describe cocaine as invariably harmful to health.

Not that I would condone taking illegal drugs in any shape or form.
Nossir.
Not me.

 

[Stealste]

I'm an occasional user of quite a lot of different substances, so i may be a little biased here (although despite my use of supposedly 'highly' addictive subtances such as cocaine, codeine and ketamine, i am addicted to none bar cigarettes) but i think most drugs should be legalised. Most of the 'crime' is either as a direct result of prohibition, or the lack of proper education regarding drugs. What i was basically told was 'drugs are bad.... mmmkay' which isn't constructive - So i had to make my own decision on drugs, several of which i wouldn't have tried with proper education, such as opium. Most drugs harm you less than alcohol, in moderation and as long as you harm no other with your decisions you should be able to do whatever you please. 'They' say drugs are dangerous. So is driving. So are sports. So is travelling. Etc. Etc. Yet you are trusted to make your own decision in regards to your own safety in these matters. Why not also with drugs? I would leave you with a final point, many people look on drugs as a cause of crime. It is not: drug use is an effect. If a country worries about its drug problem then it should be looking to the root of the problem, typically poverty, poor education, and a lack of opportunies. But then again, it easier to blame drugs than address these shortcomings.

 

[Sander]

No, people, 'but alcohol and tobacco are also hamrful' is not a good argument to legalise marijuana.
As welsh so eloquently puts it: two wrongs do not make a right. If legalising marijuana is 'wrong', then the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal does not suddenly make it right.

You can make a really good case for legalised marijuana using actual arguments based on the merits of a legalisation, instead of on a basis of comparison.

And of course welsh is right - whether or not to legalise marijuana is a boring subject, as marijuana is largely harmless and already widely in use.

Some drugs are used as medical treatments- I don't see why at least those shouldn't be legalized.

Because the downside of legalisation can be larger than the upside of medical uses.

Mind you, this may not be the case for marijuana, but it isn't inconceivable that the medical uses of a specific drug to not outweigh the downside of legality.
And hell, most highly addictive substances that have medical uses have been legalised. They're called medicine.

I'm an occasional user of quite a lot of different substances, so i may be a little biased here (although despite my use of supposedly 'highly' addictive subtances such as cocaine, codeine and ketamine, i am addicted to none bar cigarettes) but i think most drugs should be legalised. Most of the 'crime' is either as a direct result of prohibition, or the lack of proper education regarding drugs. What i was basically told was 'drugs are bad.... mmmkay' which isn't constructive - So i had to make my own decision on drugs, several of which i wouldn't have tried with proper education, such as opium. Most drugs harm you less than alcohol, in moderation and as long as you harm no other with your decisions you should be able to do whatever you please. 'They' say drugs are dangerous. So is driving. So are sports. So is travelling. Etc. Etc. Yet you are trusted to make your own decision in regards to your own safety in these matters. Why not also with drugs? I would leave you with a final point, many people look on drugs as a cause of crime. It is not: drug use is an effect. If a country worries about its drug problem then it should be looking to the root of the problem, typically poverty, poor education, and a lack of opportunies. But then again, it easier to blame drugs than address these shortcomings.

I'd agree with you, up to a point. While background, education and the like may exacerbate drug use in a certain population group, it certainly isn't the only cause of drug use. Cocaine used to be a cool drug that was used almost solely by the middle to upper class as it was too expensive for the lower class.
Drug use is not just about class, poverty and education, even though it does play an important role.

Some drugs are used as medical treatments- I don't see why at least those shouldn't be legalized.

Because the downside of legalisation can be larger than the upside of medical uses.

Mind you, this may not be the case for marijuana, but it isn't inconceivable that the medical uses of a specific drug to not outweigh the downside of legality.
And hell, most highly addictive substances that have medical uses have been legalised. They're called medicine.

The issue of whether treating drug use as merely a health issue was raised when my class (on this) thought about drug court. Negative reinforcement does work- as you point out. But there should be a difference or some way of keeping non-violent drug offenders out of jail.

It's also obvious, though, that the current drug laws are not doing their job as incentives as well as they could be. So change is definitely needed, the problem is finding a balance between treatment and punishment.

That you'd have major drug industries become legal through the selling of highly addictive drugs doesn't seem to me a good way to for those countries to economically develop into more prosperous industries. Rather, it would make the owners rich at the expense of large populations of middle and lower classes who bear the costs of those large profits with their addictions.

Perhaps it would. But a move towards legalisation of most hard drugs will inevitably lead to a more matured drug industry. Is that what we want?
To be fair, the choice might be between a drug industry that is illegal and unmonitored and a drug industry that is legal and monitored up to a point. It may not be possible to get rid of it, and then legalisation might be the lesser of two evils.

 

[Ravager69]

Haven't any of you find ironic that humanity can't seem to have fun without poisoning itself with alcohol or drugs?

I wouldn't mind banning all manner of drugs and certainly don't want them legalized, it's simply wrong. Alcohol is enough to have fun with your friends and isn't half as dangerous as drugs. People need to know that taking them is risky and they won't feel so, if they'll be available in every supermarket for 20 bucks or so, advertised on the TV as your best shit ever etc.

Get real, people. Legalizing drugs ain't solving nothing.

 

[Sander]

Haven't any of you find ironic that humanity can't seem to have fun without poisoning itself with alcohol or drugs?

I wouldn't mind banning all manner of drugs and certainly don't want them legalized, it's simply wrong. Alcohol is enough to have fun with your friends and isn't half as dangerous as drugs. People need to know that taking them is risky and they won't feel so, if they'll be available in every supermarket for 20 bucks or so, advertised on the TV as your best shit ever etc.

Get real, people. Legalizing drugs ain't solving nothing.

It's bullshit like this that turns people off of the War on Drugs.
It also annoys me that you simply ignore all of the text that has been written in this topic.

Alcohol has been shown to be much more destructive than marijuana. Lumping in all drugs in one group is clearly nonsense and probably counterproductive.

Your blanket statements that you posit as if they are the holy truth are, in fact, nothing but random unsupported statements that you assume are true. Try using arguments next time.

 

[Stealste]

Haven't any of you find ironic that humanity can't seem to have fun without poisoning itself with alcohol or drugs?

I wouldn't mind banning all manner of drugs and certainly don't want them legalized, it's simply wrong. Alcohol is enough to have fun with your friends and isn't half as dangerous as drugs. People need to know that taking them is risky and they won't feel so, if they'll be available in every supermarket for 20 bucks or so, advertised on the TV as your best shit ever etc.

Get real, people. Legalizing drugs ain't solving nothing.

It's bullshit like this that turns people off of the War on Drugs.
It also annoys me that you simply ignore all of the text that has been written in this topic.

Alcohol has been shown to be much more destructive than marijuana. Lumping in all drugs in one group is clearly nonsense and probably counterproductive.

Your blanket statements that you posit as if they are the holy truth are, in fact, nothing but random unsupported statements that you assume are true. Try using arguments next time.

You save me typing. There are many, many arguments for drugs to remain illegal none of which this guy stated. I could give a good dozen horror stories regarding drugs, but i could give hundreds regarding alcohol. Alcohol is fun with friends? Guys in my town think so too. They usually think it's a good idea to beat the shit out of me if i'm around too. Even my friends are like that drunk, some of them. Watched them kick in a police cars front window and piss on the driving wheel 2 weeks ago. That was all booze, not marajuana, cocaine or in fact anything else at all.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Gotta get going soon, so here's a quick list of pros and cons.


Pros

-Would remove a massive drain on taxpayers by eliminating all future court fees, public defender fees (for drug offenses), and the cost of housing the hundreds of thousands (253,300 in 2005) of inmates currently incarcerated on drug charges.

-If drugs were being synthesized by corporations, they'd be "safer" (You won't be running the risk of getting product cut with poison or ice or some shit).

-The government would tax these sales HEAVILY, which would probably counter the extra healthcare drain they'd create.



Cons

-Drunk driving is already a big problem. By legalizing banned substances, we'd definitely see an increase in deaths caused by drivers under the influence of said substances.

-There would be an increase in violent crimes. You've heard of people on meth or pcp going out of their fucking minds and killing their girlfriend/spouse/friend over some petty shit that got heated; then taking five cops to subdue them. Well, add that sort of thing to the bar scene... or any public place really.

(And this is the big one)

-Kids. Yeah, I hate the little shits; but I do sympathize with parents.


It's already easy enough for kids to get their hands on pot/ex, or even some of mom's xanax. Widespread legalization is pretty much validating drug use (no amount of TRUTH commercials would change that). Hard drugs will fuck up your life. Honestly, the thought of kids being able to easily get their hands on that stuff is scary.


I'm all for legalizing recreational pot use among adults, but that sort of thing is a slippery slope.

 

[Dead Guy]

Although moderate consumption of alcohol has also been shown to decrease mortality as a part of a mediterranean diet, as recently published in the British Medical Journal:

Controlling for potential confounders, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with a statistically significant reduction in total mortality (adjusted mortality ratio per two unit increase in score 0.864, 95% confidence interval 0.802 to 0.932). The contributions of the individual components of the Mediterranean diet to this association were moderate ethanol consumption 23.5%, low consumption of meat and meat products 16.6%, high vegetable consumption 16.2%, high fruit and nut consumption 11.2%, high monounsaturated to saturated lipid ratio 10.6%, and high legume consumption 9.7%.

Others have hypothesized that alcohol kills a lot more people than it saves, due to accidents and violence caused by intoxication.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

What welsh? What is the problem with heroin and crack? Heroin was first developed and used as a muscle relaxant and pain medication. It worked very well. Cochaine in the wild, the plant, is a very moderate stimulant around the same potency as 2 cups of expresso.

I don't understand why drugs are not used as medical tools and regulated by pharmacologists, the people who actually know about the subject.

Legalize and study all drugs. Educate everyone. Every drug has an overdose rating, but water poising happens before you overdose on pot!

The lack of control that science and reason has in society sickens me.

 

[jero cvmi]

let's also ask a simple questions- "would legalization also lead to increased addiction and crime related to that addiction."

did alcohol legalization also lead to increased addiction and crime related to that addiction?

also: define drug related crime.
Are drugs illegal because drug related activities are somehow related to other illegal activities, or is it the other way round?
I think as long as drugs are illegal, the production and distribution will be controlled mostly by organized crime, along with all the other illegal stuff.

Another thing. people use substances, illegal or not, for a variety of stupid reasons. the reasons will persist, and people will still do it, regardless of the law.
Especially as far as "hard" drugs are concerned, if some people are motivated enough to ignore their own health and self preservation instinct, then they're not going to be scared off by the law. that doesn't mean they have to be treated like criminals, or that they have to be an income source for the mafia.

With pot, it's a little different. it's nowhere near as harmful or addictive as other drugs, even alcohol. So it's less risky to try, but also easier to quit. That's why i guess more people will smoke it if it's legal, but i don't think this will be in any way related to crime.

 

[Stealste]

What welsh? What is the problem with heroin and crack? Heroin was first developed and used as a muscle relaxant and pain medication. It worked very well. Cochaine in the wild, the plant, is a very moderate stimulant around the same potency as 2 cups of expresso.

I don't understand why drugs are not used as medical tools and regulated by pharmacologists, the people who actually know about the subject.

Legalize and study all drugs. Educate everyone. Every drug has an overdose rating, but water poising happens before you overdose on pot!

The lack of control that science and reason has in society sickens me.

I don't think science and reason have as much to do with it as they should. Pharmaceutical companies would rather synthesize and produce their own substances, much more profit in it, though that's not to say they wont use some plants- THC (active ingredient in Cannabis) was used in some form of pill i believe that was trialled in the US, but it was not as effective in pain relief as Cannabis and also had side effects that are usually offset by the other active ingredients of weed- so the trial ultimately failed. I think it comes down to money more than anything...

 

[Sander]

I'm all for legalizing recreational pot use among adults, but that sort of thing is a slippery slope.

A slippery slope we are already one with legalised alcohol and tobacco.


@Dead Guy: the 'mediterranean diet' does not call for intoxication of any kind. Moderate drinking is exactly that: one glass or so each day.
Moreover, it is unclear whether the health benefits are due to the alcoholic drinks or other parts of the diet. Furthermore I don't think it has been shown that the beneficial effects of 'alcoholic drinks' have anything to do with the alcoholic content of those drinks, but more with other parts of those drinks that you don't find elsewhere. If I recall correctly, the small lifespan increase only occurred with red wine.
Lastly, it's hard to argue that small increases in lifespan offset the hard deaths.

PS: Opeth!