So then let's get specific. Why don't you educate me on the negative effects of Psilocybin. Considering, of course, that it's less toxic for you then aspirin, grows in the ground and no one has ever died from consuming it.
No offense, but the US black market allows the perfect opportunity to profit in the highest regards.
Why is high grade hydroponic cannabis worth its weight in gold?
Why is high grade cocaine worth its weight 2x of platinum?
Why is high grade heroine worth its weight in carats?
Answer: Black markets.
Without a doubt, the US drug policy is chiefly responsible for the drug trafficking throughout the entire world. Without the windfall profit motive, this would be little different than trafficking tobacco.
Isn't this a good thing? When something costs more, it's harder to get....
If heroin was legal, it does not mean i, or the majority of Americans would try it.
No, but a lot more people would try it.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm against legalizing a drug so long as you can't prove the negative effects of criminalization outweigh those of decriminalization. Criminalization discourages use, and also creates a black market; I have seen no evidence that the latter is more dangerous than the former for the vast majority of illegal drugs.
Contrasting government figures for traditional crops -- like corn and wheat -- against the study's projections for marijuana production, the report cites marijuana as the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30.
The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).
It has been proven, in every country that has decriminalized drugs, that decriminalization has fewer negative effects than prohibition.I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm against legalizing a drug so long as you can't prove the negative effects of criminalization outweigh those of decriminalization.
Like I said, the negative effects of criminalization outweighed those of decriminalization. This is especially true if an illegal drug is widely used. Hence, tobacco and alcohol.Then why was prohibition of alcohol rescinded?
I am willing to accept mandatory treatment as opposed to jail time, as long as it's not nothing.Not to mention, you are are speaking of opinion (in regards to less people trying it). Dutch drug statistics show that a shift from criminal prosecution towards medical treatment (after all addiction is a sickness) lowers the rates of drug abuse.
OK, so I'm willing to accept mandatory treatment instead.Along with the externalities such as increased drug related organized crime, and murder, there is another unintended consequence. Jail sentences assigned for simple possession contribute to felonies or exposure to the true criminal elements of society.
The thing about black market demand; the inflated prices that accompany it pull the product into the underground economy.
America's no.1 cash crop is cannabis, not corn, wheat, or soy.
Marijuana Called Top U.S. Cash Crop - ABC News
It has been proven, in every country that has decriminalized drugs, that decriminalization has fewer negative effects than prohibition.
Prove it. For drugs other than marijuana. I'd like to see the statistics.
Like I said, the negative effects of criminalization outweighed those of decriminalization. This is especially true if an illegal drug is widely used. Hence, tobacco and alcohol.
I am willing to accept mandatory treatment as opposed to jail time, as long as it's not nothing.
OK, so I'm willing to accept mandatory treatment instead.
This can only happen if the demand is particularly high, as it is with marijuana. Which is why I'm not necessarily against legalizing marijuana.
Ask and you shall receive.
The Netherlands Compared With The United States | Drug War Facts
Pay attention the the hard drug usage rates. Technically, ALL drug use(including)cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands. As the locals say, its "tolerated." Although there are warning signs everywhere that say, "hard drugs not allowed", or both hard and soft drugs.
Here is the kicker: Dutch cops are not allowed to use DEA style sting operations, and rarely if ever arrest people for hard drug possession. Well, unless you happen to be snorting coke, or shooting up in public and flaunting it. Ill be spending 10 days there from the second week of May, and i travel there 2-5 times per year, so my anecdote is top notch:mrgreen:
What exactly is so "criminal" about drug use? It currently is a victimless crime. I am interested to hear your view on sleeping pills.
That's great for the Dutch. But unless there was once a time where such drug use wasn't so tolerated, to be compared with now, that's a null point. Things like culture, availability, and other outside forces play into these statistics; there are other countries, for example, less tolerant of drug use than the Netherlands but still have a lower drug use rate.
Irrelevant. This is about practical implications. If banning drug use decreases drug use (which is only logical; banning anything discourages it), it makes sense to do so.
Sleeping pills have a positive effect they are working towards among all of their negative effects. The same cannot be said of cocaine or heroin.
Drug use was treated as criminality before 1961 in Netherlands. Regardless, we are arguing profit motive that incentives drug pedaling.
OK, but it's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of facts. And I have yet to see facts stating that a drug black market is worse than getting rid of a discouragement of drug use.Your operating under the premise that drug use is worse than the crime associated with prohibiting it. I happen to disagree.
It has been proven that the most effective way of preventing drug use is through honest education, not that mindless bull**** the DARE program spews.
Prohibition is highly inefficient....
Those profit motives can only exist with 1. a low supply and/or 2. a high demand. The former is a good thing.
OK, but it's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of facts. And I have yet to see facts stating that a drug black market is worse than getting rid of a discouragement of drug use.
This, I will agree with.
I can't find a poll for Americans, but less than 10% of Canadians agree. And they are much more liberal towards drugs than we are.
Killing drug users would also decrease drug use. So at what point does the end stop justifying the means for you?Dav said:If banning drug use decreases drug use (which is only logical; banning anything discourages it), it makes sense to do so.
The former (low supply) is what leads to a black market. We should stop worrying about the supply and focus on lowering the demand - with education instead of coercion.Those profit motives can only exist with 1. a low supply and/or 2. a high demand. The former is a good thing.
No, an assertion that the punishment fits (or doesn't fit) the crime is an opinion, not a fact.OK, but it's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of facts.
That's a strawman because nobody said we should stop discouraging the use of drugs. It's also a false dilemma because there are more options than just black market/discouragement or no black market/no discouragement. I think we should continue to discourage the use of drugs after legalization, and in fact I think it would be irresponsible not to. But we shouldn't use the law to accomplish that.And I have yet to see facts stating that a drug black market is worse than getting rid of a discouragement of drug use.
1. I've known a lot of people who think marijuana should be legalized, but heroine, for example, should not. For some reason, whenever I ask them why, they are never able to give an answer that doesn't apply just as equally to marijuana or alcohol. People aren't always consistent.I can't find a poll for Americans, but less than 10% of Canadians agree. And they are much more liberal towards drugs than we are.
Or how about the World Health Organization?A report commissioned by an influential American Medical Association committee was tabled after some medical experts reviewed a draft copy. The report recommended legalizing marijuana and decriminalization of other illegal drugs
(snip)
The draft report was commissioned to look at ways for reducing the harm of drugs. It declared that "overall, abstinence-based treatment has a high failure rate," arguing that "under all circumstances, participation in drug treatment should be voluntary." It also recommended that "moderate steps toward drug decriminalization be taken" in order to reverse "the clearly negative consequences of the present prohibition status." John Morgan, M.D., a professor of pharmacology at the City University of New York Medical School and author of the report, said "it struck most of us that the biggest harm reduction we could see would be to stop putting people in jail."
In addition, the draft report suggested that marijuana "should be decriminalized, and a mechanism created for retail sales to those 18 years of age or older" and that the "use, possession and low-level sales of all psychoactive drugs should be a subject of police action only when these activities are associated with a disruption of public order." It also recommended that "all 'buy-and-bust' police actions should cease."
A.M.A. Tables Controversial Draft Report on Harm Reduction
Or maybe we should ask the people on the ground who have actually been fighting the war on drugs for almost three decades?“The U.S., which has been driving much of the world’s drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. … The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.”
The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies
I believe these opinions carry far more weight than the popular opinion polls of Canada or any other country. I hope you agree, and that you can provide some authoritative sources as I have to support your opinions. I believe you claimed that a "lot more people" would try marijuana if it were legalized, but you haven't supported that with any evidence or authority opinion. You were also shown how a policy of decriminalization in the Netherlands has had fewer negative effects in than prohibition, which is exactly what you asked for, but then you moved the goal posts by claiming specific cultural differences that weren't different after all. You're on the right track by finding support from Canadian citizens, but I'd be interested in seeing better sources so I can rip them apart too. Now I'm off to pack another bowl. :2wave:Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of our existing drug policies. Those policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs.
LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs
“So we want to end drug prohibition just like we ended alcohol prohibition in 1933,” he says. “Because as law enforcers we understand that the day after we ended that terrible law, Al Capone and all his smuggling buddies were out of business. They were no longer killing each other, they were no longer killing us cops fighting that useless war, and they were no longer killing our children caught in the crossfire.”
(LEAP Founder Jack) Cole says that in 1914, when the first federal drug law was enacted, the government estimated 1.3 percent of us were addicted to illegal drugs. In 1970, when the War on Drugs began, the government estimated 1.3 percent of us were addicted to illegal drugs. Thirty-nine million arrests later, he says, the government says 1.3 percent of us are addicted to illegal drugs.
“That,” says Cole, “is the only statistic that’s never changed at all.”
Legalized drugs may do less harm / LJWorld.com
You seem not to understand black markets. These extremely high profits have very little to do with supply, and all to do with risks associated with doing business. While fluctuation's in supply due to drug busts have short run impact on prices, the very nature of the beast is attributed to stiff punishments that lead to total loss. The total amount of cannabis grown underground exceeds the nominative value both corn and wheat combined. Coming from someone who partakes in cannabis activities, lack of supply rarely comes to mind.
Do you know cost of efficiency lost due to drug use? I know the cost of the war on drugs sponsored by tax payers money.
Combine that with the growing size of the prison populations there is two possible conclusions: A.) Americans are the most inherently unlawful citizens in the world. Our prison to population ratio exceeds all! B.) The system is a complete failure, that has ruined the lives of millions of people who have never harmed anyone.
You agree with an anti criminality response to drug addiction, and state that drug deterrence via criminalization is optimal?
Did you ever think that maybe, people associate the violence and (due to high prices) addictive behavior (again due to high prices) with the drugs themselves, rather than what causes those two very negative externalities?
Without such high prices, drug pedaling gangsters would all but evaporate, and addicts would not have to resort to as much theft and prostitution. Yes it would probably still exist, but not at these levels.
EH.Net Encyclopedia: Alcohol ProhibitionI challenge you to locate a credible source that states stiffer penalties and greater allocation of law enforcement directed to drug activities decreases drug abuse in the long run. :2razz:
Killing drug users would also decrease drug use. So at what point does the end stop justifying the means for you?
The former (low supply) is what leads to a black market. We should stop worrying about the supply and focus on lowering the demand - with education instead of coercion.
No, an assertion that the punishment fits (or doesn't fit) the crime is an opinion, not a fact.
Here's another opinion: My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Drug use alone doesn't harm anyone but the person who is voluntarily using it. Therefore, the law has no business prohibiting people from using drugs. The law should protect us from each other and from the government, but it should not be used to try and protect us from our own decisions and actions that affect no one but ourselves. The government does not own us, therefore it should have no authority over what we decide to do to our own bodies, whether it's eating fast food, getting tattoos, or using drugs. They're all in the same category as far as I'm concerned.
That's a strawman because nobody said we should stop discouraging the use of drugs. It's also a false dilemma because there are more options than just black market/discouragement or no black market/no discouragement. I think we should continue to discourage the use of drugs after legalization, and in fact I think it would be irresponsible not to. But we shouldn't use the law to accomplish that.
1. I've known a lot of people who think marijuana should be legalized, but heroine, for example, should not. For some reason, whenever I ask them why, they are never able to give an answer that doesn't apply just as equally to marijuana or alcohol. People aren't always consistent.
The UN has also credited Swedish prohibition of drugs as a success:2. This is an appeal to authority fallacy as well as ad populum. If we're going to consider outside opinions, why don't we look to someone who is more qualified on the subject than John Q. Public, shall we? Have you considered the American Medical Association?
Or how about the World Health Organization?
Or maybe we should ask the people on the ground who have actually been fighting the war on drugs for almost three decades?
I believe these opinions carry far more weight than the popular opinion polls of Canada or any other country. I hope you agree, and that you can provide some authoritative sources as I have to support your opinions. I believe you claimed that a "lot more people" would try marijuana if it were legalized, but you haven't supported that with any evidence or authority opinion. You were also shown how a policy of decriminalization in the Netherlands has had fewer negative effects in than prohibition, which is exactly what you asked for, but then you moved the goal posts by claiming specific cultural differences that weren't different after all. You're on the right track by finding support from Canadian citizens, but I'd be interested in seeing better sources so I can rip them apart too. Now I'm off to pack another bowl. :2wave:
What does it matter what it has to do with? When prices go up, demand goes down. It's basic economics.
I do believe we can continue prohibiting drugs and end the drug war at the same time.
Or we just enforce our laws better than anyone else.
All I meant was that we need better drug education, but we can do that and keep drugs illegal at the same time.
Again, ignoring basic economics. Even if illegal drug selling became more profitable as it became more dangerous, the high prices can only lead to a decrease in demand. If that's true with everything else ever, why isn't it true with drugs?
I can't seem to find statistics on heroin or cocaine though....
The fact that cirrhosis was substantially lower on average during Prohibition than before or after might suggest that Prohibition played a substantial role in reducing cirrhosis, but further examination suggests this conclusion is premature. First, there have been substantial fluctuations in cirrhosis outside the Prohibition period, indicating that other factors are important determinants and must be accounted for in analyzing whether Prohibition caused the low level of cirrhosis during Prohibition. Second, there is no obvious jump in cirrhosis upon repeal. This fact does not prove that Prohibition had no effect, since the lags between consumption and cirrhosis mean the effect of increased consumption might not have shown up immediately. Nevertheless, the behavior of cirrhosis after repeal fails to suggest a large effect of Prohibition. Third, cirrhosis began declining from its pre-1920 peak by as early as 1908, and it had already attained its lowest level over the sample in 1920, the year in which constitutional prohibition took effect.
This last fact is the most problematic for the claim that Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption. One possible explanation for the large pre-1920 decline in cirrhosis is that state prohibition laws were becoming increasingly widespread during the 1910-1920 period. Dills and Miron (2001) use state-level data, however, to show the declines in cirrhosis during this period were typically as large or larger in wet states as in states that adopted prohibition laws. More formally, they estimate a fixed-effects regression using state-level cirrhosis data to show that, once aggregate effects are accounted for, there is little effect of state prohibitions on cirrhosis.
I do believe that rather than punishment, drug users should be forced into rehabilitation programs. It's the sellers I want imprisoned.
Now I'm confused...prohibition IS the war on drugs, so continuing one necessarily means continuing the other. How can you end the war on drugs but still legally prohibit their use? Can you please explain the difference?I do believe we can continue prohibiting drugs and end the drug war at the same time.
Of course we can. But the discussion at hand is whether it makes sense to keep them illegal, not whether we can keep them illegal.All I meant was that we need better drug education, but we can do that and keep drugs illegal at the same time.
High prices do typically reduce demand, and drugs are no different. But again you're refusing to acknowledge that this causes more problems than it solves, and that there are better alternatives than prohibition for reducing demand.Again, ignoring basic economics. Even if illegal drug selling became more profitable as it became more dangerous, the high prices can only lead to a decrease in demand. If that's true with everything else ever, why isn't it true with drugs?
I think you didn't read that source very carefully. Allow me to highlight a few of the caveats from your own source:EH.Net Encyclopedia: Alcohol Prohibition
I can't seem to find statistics on heroin or cocaine though....
Then you don't understand addiction very well. Anyone with any experience with addiction can tell you the most important thing is that the person has to want to quit. If that essential ingredient is missing, all other efforts are futile.I do believe that rather than punishment, drug users should be forced into rehabilitation programs.
Why? And please don't think that's a stupid question. I really can't understand what it is about selling drugs to willing consumers that gets everyone's panties in a bunch. It's a mutual exchange between consenting adults. It's not like dealers are out there shoving narcotics down people's throats against their will.It's the sellers I want imprisoned.
When you focus on lowering the supply, you cause more problems than you solve. We've been over this.Or both.
Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain this "reason" that supposedly trumps the role that the Founders intended for our government's influence over our private lives. I'm dying to hear this.A good example of ideology trumping reason, something I have seen a lot of lately.
I agree that prohibition might discourage drug use, with the possible exception of the "forbidden fruit" effect that many experts speculate about. It makes sense because in general the law reflects and reinforces our social norms.Let's say, for argument's sake, that you bought the idea that criminalization discourages drug use. Then would it be acceptable?
1. The health hazards of drug use are good reasons why drugs should not be used. They are not and have never been good reasons why their use should be illegal. If you prohibit a substance because it's a health hazard, the you're going to have to prohibit a lot more substances to be consistent. Otherwise it's hypocritical. Could you please explain this slippery slope?Two good reasons: 1. MJ is much less dangerous than other illegal drugs; 2. It is much more commonly used than other illegal drugs and therefore the problems with criminalization are exaggerated.
Again you didn't read your own source very well. Note the title, it's essentially debunking that UN report on Sweden. Sweden has a relatively low rate of *legal* drug use, and Greece spends less on prohibition enforcement than any other EU country, but still has fewer drug users. Given these facts, a correlation between Sweden's strict drug policy and the low rate of drug use cannot reasonably be drawn. The UN needs to reassess the effectiveness of Sweden's drug policy in light of these glaringly problematic variables. From your link:The UN has also credited Swedish prohibition of drugs as a success:
Looking at the UN, smelling a rat
What? Experts contradicting each other? Maybe these "experts" have their own opinions, are all only human, and can't help but push their opinions into their research.
That's a copout. Of course they have an agenda. That's what it means to have an opinion. The arguments they have made and the conclusions they have drawn in no way negate the authoritative scope of their opinions. The opinions of over 10,000 judges, lawyers, and police officers on legal and criminal matters are relevant and substantial because they are legal and criminal experts. Perhaps you'd rather acknowledge what Joe the Plummer has to say, and dismiss out of hand any credible expert opinion to the contrary because of some hidden and devious agenda you think they might have, but surely you can see how problematic that is.Why would we want to do that? They have an agenda to push.
I just gave you two links (WHO and LEAP) which show there is little or no noticible correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use.I was looking pretty hard for statistics on how criminalization affected heroin and cocaine use, but to no prevail. So I'll post more facts as I find them.
I'm totally confused by the bold part, can you please explain what you mean?The thing is, I realize that things other than criminalization affect drug use and it will increase and decrease regardless of it. I just don't see why every law of incentives would somehow reverse itself for this one issue.
That's perfectly fair and you're right that 90% is significant and shouldn't be ignored. But since there are a notable number of experts who disagree with them, and give valid and logical reasons that make perfect sense to me, I'm not at all hesitant to say that those 90% are simply wrong. In the absence of legitimate and well-reasoned counter arguments from experts on the other side, nothing else makes sense.And when 90% of an educated population believes in something, I have reserves about claiming that every single one of them is wrong. They could be, so I keep the thought open, but it's still a tricky claim.
Hilarious picture.
I was going to attempt an actual response to the three giant posts above but... forget it. Two against one is a tough break and it's not like we'll ever agree anyways. Sorry guys.
Aww that's too bad. It's all good though. You held out longer than most.I was going to attempt an actual response to the three giant posts above but... forget it. Two against one is a tough break and it's not like we'll ever agree anyways. Sorry guys.
I agree that we share most of the blame for our drug policies, but I think Mexico deserves some of the blame because they've been unable to address major criminal problems besides the drug cartels. The notorious corruption in the police force likely contributed to allowing the cartels to become as large and dangerous as they are today.But I do like this topic, and I wonder if there's anyone who will disagree with me when I say that the U.S. more than "shares blame' for the Mexican drug wars, but is in fact to blame.
I agree that we share most of the blame for our drug policies, but I think Mexico deserves some of the blame because they've been unable to address major criminal problems besides the drug cartels. The notorious corruption in the police force likely contributed to allowing the cartels to become as large and dangerous as they are today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?