Police for the legalization of drugs. Is it time?

[gonzomax]

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Prohibition of alcohol was a horrible failure. Yet, we did not learn from it. Last week I saw an hour long program about these people, former drug enforcement police who want to have drugs legalized. One of them said before the Harrison Act drug users were about 1.4 % of population. He says now it is the same. He suggests that is you dropped a block of heroine and cocaine on a street corner 98 % of the people would walk by. Drug enforcement eats billions of dollars and does very little good. We waste billions jailing people for drug use yet we can not afford serious rehab for any one who wants to get off.
Police departments,politicians and Governments are all corrupted by drugs. Neighborhoods are unsafe because addicts have to commit crimes to obtain the money for drugs. We waste billions incarcerating users and then releasing them unchanged,back on the streets. It is time to legalize and tax one of the biggest money makers in the world.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Prohibition of alcohol was a horrible failure. Yet, we did not learn from it. Last week I saw an hour long program about these people, former drug enforcement police who want to have drugs legalized. One of them said before the Harrison Act drug users were about 1.4 % of population. He says now it is the same. He suggests that is you dropped a block of heroine and cocaine on a street corner 98 % of the people would walk by. Drug enforcement eats billions of dollars and does very little good. We waste billions jailing people for drug use yet we can not afford serious rehab for any one who wants to get off.
Police departments,politicians and Governments are all corrupted by drugs. Neighborhoods are unsafe because addicts have to commit crimes to obtain the money for drugs. We waste billions incarcerating users and then releasing them unchanged,back on the streets. It is time to legalize and tax one of the biggest money makers in the world.

Even if we decide that some drugs are too dangerous to legalize, we're clearly going about enforcing drug laws the wrong way. Nobody goes to jail for drug crimes and comes out rehabilitated. I don't know what the answer is, though. Alcohol is not always a good comparison to drug use, because although it's possible to drink responsibly it's not really possible to shoot heroin or smoke crack responsibly.

[Gozu]

Invest the money needed to jail non-violent drug offenders into rehab centers.

Decriminalize, regulate and tax weaker drugs as per recommendation of unbiased commission decades ago and use those revenues to educate and detox people.

Treatment, not jail. Better to sell safe drugs than to let violence and overdosing continue. It's just common sense. People just need to have faith in their ability to make responsible decisions. We have to do it every day anyways.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Alcohol is not always a good comparison to drug use, because although it's possible to drink responsibly it's not really possible to shoot heroin or smoke crack responsibly.

Actually it is possible to shoot heroin responsibly. Heroin has few long term health effects aside from constipation. Sharing needles, not knowing the strenghth, and having it cut with dicey substances are all the result of it being illegal.

[counsel wolf]

Originally Posted by Mosier

though. Alcohol is not always a good comparison to drug use, because although it's possible to drink responsibly it's not really possible to shoot heroin or smoke crack responsibly.

Cite? especially for the heroin claim. People used to use the stuff as cough medicine for god's sake. Its slide into illegality was very protracted, it started off being available over the counter in pharmacists, during which time there were many people who became dependant but were able to maintain their day to day lives quite well (think functional alcoholic). Making heroin illegal and thus hard to obtain, requiring contact with criminals and much larger sums of money to maintain a habit was the catalyst for turning drugs from a problem of individual addiction and a medical issue into the criminal matter it is today.

I'm having difficulty tracking down an online cite I trust for the above paragraph, but I would recommend this book to those interested in the forces behind drug prohibition. My information is taken for it.

[counsel wolf]

Originally Posted by Gozu

Invest the money needed to jail non-violent drug offenders into rehab centers.

Decriminalize, regulate and tax weaker drugs as per recommendation of unbiased commission decades ago and use those revenues to educate and detox people.

Treatment, not jail. Better to sell safe drugs than to let violence and overdosing continue. It's just common sense. People just need to have faith in their ability to make responsible decisions. We have to do it every day anyways.

Whilst everything you say makes sense there is a problem that the first people to legalise are going to get a wave of addicts travelling there which is likely to make things quite unpleasant for everyone else (c.f. Amsterdam which would be a far more pleasant place without the large foreign addict population), the resulting bad news stories will be paraded by the prohibitionists to maintain the status quo everywhere else. Legalisation will only work if a certain critical mass of the larger countries all change tack at the same time, which is tragically unlikely to happen.

[gonzomax]

There are governments whose prime business is illegal drugs. One of the enforcers on the show said he was in Nicaragua he saw the police that we were paying to fight exportation and growing of drugs, playing soccer with men in a drug cartel. They just eat up billions of our money and share it with the growers. It does not work.

[Cisco]

Every mom would think their kid wouldn't be on drugs if they were illegal.

My personal opinion is that all drugs should be legal to possess, but illegal to sell and of course illegal to drive under the influence of.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Alcohol is not always a good comparison to drug use, because although it's possible to drink responsibly it's not really possible to shoot heroin or smoke crack responsibly.

I'm curious about this as well. I know nothing of heroin and crack, and I'm sure that there are very few, if any, responsible users of them. But is that a result of the fact that the only culture they are in is an extra-legal one that encourages excessive use?

[diggleblop]

I think all drugs should be legal as well. The money blown on "fighting" them needs to be put into rehabs, clinics and anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns, since drinking and smoking are far worse than a good amount of illegal drugs. And that statement can be proven, just google cigarette deaths and then google marijuana deaths. Hell, google cigarette deaths vs. heroin deaths.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Alcohol is not always a good comparison to drug use, because although it's possible to drink responsibly it's not really possible to shoot heroin or smoke crack responsibly.

It is certainly possible to use heroin responsibly; it used to be a brand-name drug, sold over the counter. Most of the problems of heroin users stem from its illegalility.

And if cocaine were legal, nobody would even bother with crack.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by diggleblop

I think all drugs should be legal as well. The money blown on "fighting" them needs to be put into rehabs, clinics and anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns, since drinking and smoking are far worse than a good amount of illegal drugs. And that statement can be proven, just google cigarette deaths and then google marijuana deaths. Hell, google cigarette deaths vs. heroin deaths.

I'm NOT saying marijuana kills more than cigarettes, BUT . . .

I wouldn't quite trust the numbers that we take for granted. I've read in a few places that anytime a person who smokes cigarettes dies - from virtually any cause - whoever is keeping score tallies it as a cigarette death. Whereas with marijuana - which contains more carcinogens than tobacco and is puff-for-puff more harmful - gets off every time. I don't think a death has ever been directly attributed to marijuana, but to think it's never happened is just holding your head in the sand.

[Moriarty]

I, too, think drug laws are counter-productive, especially since they criminalize medical problems which would be better suited with other forms of rehabilitation and treatment.

Although NORML is obviously a biased source, I find this article, which indicates that pot smoking in Holland is less than in the US, despite its legality there, to be compelling. Much of our drug problem in the US stems from, rather than is alievated by, our legal intolerance for drug use. By demonizing (some) altered states, we increase their appeal.

And, obviously, the US doesn't necessarily have a problem with other forms of intoxication; the huge tobacco and alcohol industries testify to that.

Instead, I think the history, and propagation, of the drug war is much more tied to the economic juggernaut stemming from prohibition. While some may suggest that legalizing, and taxing, drugs, would be a boon to our economy, I suspect that criminalization has a huge impact on the prison, law enforcement, and legal industries which far surpass any windfall arising from more tax revenue.

See, as a commentary on this, the lyrics to System of a Down's prison song

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suzes

And if cocaine were legal, nobody would even bother with crack.

Sadly, I can't agree with this. There is a more intense high with crack, and some gravitate to it. I do feel that drugs can be a huge problem in a person's life. But criminalization is a poor way to address a medical issue.

[NajaNivea]

FWIW, a view from NajaHusband's Minnesota relatives was that he didn't view marijuana as harmful per se, but that he knew that the instant it became legal, he'd have to worry about all the stoned drivers that were going to be waiting on the freeway to murder his children in high-speed pileups. That was it, the entirety of the reason why he, personally, will vote against legalization every single time. Stoned drivers.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by NajaNivea

FWIW, a view from NajaHusband's Minnesota relatives was that he didn't view marijuana as harmful per se, but that he knew that the instant it became legal, he'd have to worry about all the stoned drivers that were going to be waiting on the freeway to murder his children in high-speed pileups. That was it, the entirety of the reason why he, personally, will vote against legalization every single time. Stoned drivers.

Do you think it is possible to get drugs in any city in America? They are not stopped. You can get them anywhere any time.
The program made the point that legalization does not result in more users. As a matter of fact they decline. Therefore you should be strongly for legalization. It will save your children .

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I don't think a death has ever been directly attributed to marijuana, but to think it's never happened is just holding your head in the sand.

I know one thing, if they could attribute even a single death to marijuana use, they'd make that one person an anti-drug poster child and we'd see their picture plastered over countless anti-drug "public service announcements."

"They say marijuana never hurts anybody. Tell that to the family of Billy Smith.."

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Cisco

Whereas with marijuana - which contains more carcinogens than tobacco and is puff-for-puff more harmful - gets off every time. I don't think a death has ever been directly attributed to marijuana, but to think it's never happened is just holding your head in the sand.

I don't doubt that puff for puff marijuana has more carcinogens in it than cigarette smoke. But I don't know many "chain weed smokers".

I'd be willing to bet that even a heavy weed smoker might smoke two joints a day. Imagine a cig smoker who smoked two cigarettes per day. I don't think that would pose any increased risk of lung cancer at all..

[Cowboy8467]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I don't doubt that puff for puff marijuana has more carcinogens in it than cigarette smoke. But I don't know many "chain weed smokers".

I'd be willing to bet that even a heavy weed smoker might smoke two joints a day. Imagine a cig smoker who smoked two cigarettes per day. I don't think that would pose any increased risk of lung cancer at all..

No way, I've known people that smoked weed upwards of 10 times a day. The equivalent of at least 4 to 5 medium sized joints if not more.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Cowboy8467

No way, I've known people that smoked weed upwards of 10 times a day. The equivalent of at least 4 to 5 medium sized joints if not more.

That's quite impressive. I can't imagine myself smoking that much without being glued to the couch all day. Did these people do anything besides smoke weed?

Here's an interesting article: Large Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I'm curious about this as well. I know nothing of heroin and crack, and I'm sure that there are very few, if any, responsible users of them. But is that a result of the fact that the only culture they are in is an extra-legal one that encourages excessive use?

I don't think so. I'll admit to having had a bout with crack cocaine when I was 18-20, and I'm 38 now, with a family and a house and a decent job.

The illegality to me only added to the paranoia of using it, which I guess could be viewed as a thrill but I never thought so. Travelling to the wrong side of town always meant getting the fuck out of there after you scored in order to not overly associate with the sketchy drug-population as well as risking notice by the police.

It was pure addiction for me, plain and simple. I cannot possibly fathom undertaking the risks I used to take to get high, given my current life, which is far different than my former one.

And I disagree with the poster that claimed that heroin could be used responsibly. IANACOFHA ( I Am Not A Current Or Former Heroin Addict), but from what I've seen, the drug is so terribly addictive that even if you could regulate your purity (which seems to be the leading cause of heroin OD's/deaths) you would need increasing doses to achieve the same level of pleasure that you would at some point increase the dosage to a point where due to unmitigated use, your body or heart would just shut down.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Blalron

That's quite impressive. I can't imagine myself smoking that much without being glued to the couch all day. Did these people do anything besides smoke weed?

Here's an interesting article: Large Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

I think it's a little early in the game to declare that pot doesn't cause lung cancer, what with all the known carcinogens in it that exceed tobacco's by a wide margin.

What killed Bob Marley?

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I think it's a little early in the game to declare that pot doesn't cause lung cancer, what with all the known carcinogens in it that exceed tobacco's by a wide margin.

What killed Bob Marley?

Malignant Melonoma on a football wound on his toe. Due to his Rastafarian beliefs, he refused to get his toe amputated. I see no reason to think his weed smoking had anything to do with it.

Though marijuana has carcinogens, it's quite interesting that this study involving 2,000 people found no connection between pot and lung cancer. Perhaps it's the case marijuana users by and large don't smoke a large enough quantity to noticeably increase their risk. Or perhaps other chemicals in marijuana are counteracting the carcinogenic effects.

[Quartz]

I too favour the legalisation of drugs, but I think a better comparison is with cigarettes and nicotine. Use social pressure to decrease usage.

[Aeschines]

But what about the children?!

[NajaNivea]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Do you think it is possible to get drugs in any city in America? They are not stopped. You can get them anywhere any time.
The program made the point that legalization does not result in more users. As a matter of fact they decline. Therefore you should be strongly for legalization. It will save your children .

Hey, this barefoot, pot-smoking hippie is on your side . I just thought it was bizarre that his strongest argument against, and the sole reason for which he would never, ever vote to legalize was... the possibility of stoned drivers.

[lekatt]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Prohibition of alcohol was a horrible failure. Yet, we did not learn from it. Last week I saw an hour long program about these people, former drug enforcement police who want to have drugs legalized. One of them said before the Harrison Act drug users were about 1.4 % of population. He says now it is the same. He suggests that is you dropped a block of heroine and cocaine on a street corner 98 % of the people would walk by. Drug enforcement eats billions of dollars and does very little good. We waste billions jailing people for drug use yet we can not afford serious rehab for any one who wants to get off.
Police departments,politicians and Governments are all corrupted by drugs. Neighborhoods are unsafe because addicts have to commit crimes to obtain the money for drugs. We waste billions incarcerating users and then releasing them unchanged,back on the streets. It is time to legalize and tax one of the biggest money makers in the world.

You are wrong in the assumption drug use would not increase. Legal or free drugs were tried in many countries over the years, China, Britain, Holland, and here in the US where drugs were freely given to addicts. Use increased tremendously and all the programs were stopped or heavily restricted. If you want to destroy a country, just make illegal drugs legal. Very bad idea. As for cites, they are available via the Internet.

[JayRx1981]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

But what about the children?!

Hey, they can wait until they turn 18/21, like the rest of us had to for alcohol. Then they can get as blitzed as they want.

...what?

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by lekatt

You are wrong in the assumption drug use would not increase. Legal or free drugs were tried in many countries over the years, China, Britain, Holland, and here in the US where drugs were freely given to addicts. Use increased tremendously and all the programs were stopped or heavily restricted. If you want to destroy a country, just make illegal drugs legal. Very bad idea.

Cite?

As for cites, they are available via the Internet.

This is a whoosh, right?

[Darryl Lict]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.phpHe suggests that is you dropped a block of heroine and cocaine on a street corner 98 % of the people would walk by.

I don't know a single person who I know personally that is using heroin (well now that I think about it, there is a couple who have disappeared from my life who might have had a problem). People might be abusing heroines, but that is another argument. However, a kilogram of cocaine would attract notice from a lot more than 2% of the people I've met. I think we should decriminalize drug use, but it would be interesting to see what effects in has on society. I hear that certain European countries have decriminalized drug use but I am unsure of the cost benefit analysis.

[Arithosa]

I have absolutely no doubt that ending drug prohibition would make our society a better place to live. I accept the possibility that more people would probably become heroin addicts, for example, but even if we had twice as many heroin addicts in a post prohibition society, would the other negative effects currently associated with heroin abuse also double? What if all these extra addicts had access to clean needles, a constant supply of cheap heroin of consistent quality, and rehabilitation programs? What if heroin addicts didn't need to buy their heroin in the street, from potentially murderous dealers? What if they didn't have to worry about the constant threat of incarceration?

So you'd have twice the heroin addicts, but almost none of the overdoses, health problems, and crime. That's a fantastic deal, in my opinion. Others might have a problem with it, but mainly because they care less about harm reduction and more about punishing those "bad" addicts.

[Martin Hyde]

I basically have two veins of thought on this issue.

The Bureaucratic/Legal/Regulatory Problems

Let's say that we remove the criminalization of prohibited drugs in our culture. This means it is no longer illegal to sell them, no longer illegal to transport them, no longer illegal to possess them.

What happens the next day? Well, somewhere in the United States, someone sells drugs, just like the day before. A few days later, or maybe even that same very day, a current head shop owner starts selling previously illegal drugs over the counter.

Fast forward a year, and this is happening all over the place, people selling drugs to all kinds of other people.

Will this increase the rate of drug users in our society? I actually doubt it, I can imagine a few people might try pot or something, but I think it won't have a significant impact on drug usage. So, all this buying and selling won't be a big change, what will be a big change is how it is being done.

It is being done legally. And if there is one thing I am as certain of as anything in this world, it is the taxman. There's no way in hell the government isn't going to start taxing these transactions. Even an America that would be willing to decriminalize drugs would never be willing to ignore billions of dollars a year in revenue, would be willing to let people make their living without taking a share of said living.

That's just how governments operate, period.

Eventually, the drug trade would move from the (previously black) gray market to the legitimate market, drugs would be sold more and more by legitimate business men who file tax returns. Government would get its share. Eventually you might even see these drugs for sale at Walgreens and other places.

In the short term (say 5 years from decriminalization) this would lead to much lower prices, big corporations would get involved in the processing of these drugs. This would bring with it a more standardized product, as consumers would demand a standard, pure chemical product from a major corporation--the sort of demand they would never make of a street pusher.

This would bring with it new issues though, what happens when someone dies because they use a drug that is chemically impure, or adulterated with some even more harmful chemical? Today, not much. There is no accountability for that kind of thing today.

But, five years into drug decriminalization, when big corporations are the ones making the product--you're still going to have some overdoses and accidental death. I imagine it will be much rarer, but it will happen (currently legal drugs kill people, for example, all the time.)

There will be lawsuits and consumer outcry. People will say, "How can this mega corporation make billions off of selling us cocaine, but not be held to any of the regulatory standards that companies like Pfizer or Merck are? This is a totally unregulated pharmaceutical product that can have severe side effects and can cause significant harm to its users, yet the companies have no accountability! How can the government make billions in taxing these companies while not protecting its citizens?!"

Then, regulation starts. Eventually, given the nature of many of the currently illegal drugs, I see a whole new layer of regulatory complexity in place. I find it hard to believe that at some point, the FDA doesn't get involved. Maybe not, though.

I will say this, though--this isn't a wholly negative scenario. When all is said and done you'd have:

1. Products that were standardized
2. Products that were chemically pure
3. Products that were regulated and subjected to oversight by government
4. Products that are almost definitely cheaper at POS, illegality of a product and all that that entails puts an enormous price premium on anything
5. Organized crime has traditionally survived based on illegal things. When prohibition ended it was an enormous blow to the mafia, they survived on gambling and other illegal activities, but prohibition was the golden age for the mafia--and for good reason. Today, drug smuggling is the bedrock of organized crime, it is how organized crime makes its money. Organized crime can't compete with major corporations, it can't provide a chemically pure, standardized product. It only dominates this market because it is a black market that requires all sorts of illegal tactics to survive in. So, this "new world" would see organized crime taking a massive body blow.

So where is the problem? This is an enormous bureaucratic move, and one that all the bureaucrats in power know will happen. It simply will never be that we can just "decriminalize" all the drugs that we have prohibited for so many years and leave it at that. It's a major institutional shift for all the regulatory bodies involved, and I think that this leads to a lot of the "institutional" reasons that work against decriminalization. Basically, bureaucracies don't like major changes, and this would be a dramatic overhaul of the system.

The "Illegality Creates the Problems" Myth

I don't buy into the argument that drugs cause problems because they are illegal. Problems come about for drug users because they are illegal, sure, no one can deny that. The illegal nature of drugs causes problems for society, that part of it--I won't deny.

However, drugs cause problems for individuals for reasons wholly independent of their legal status. The most destructive addictive substance in human history is alcohol, without a doubt.

It is involved in more violent crimes, more destroyed lives, and destroyed families than any other drug in history. This goes back to the very earliest days of human alcohol use, even ancient history has examples of people doing terrible things under the effects of alcohol (remember Alexander killing Cleitus?)

I'm not saying this is justification for prohibiting drugs--I'm just saying, that the motivation to prohibit drug use (and the temperance movement, for example) wasn't borne entirely out of a socially conservative desire to crack down on the "undesirables." There is a genuine societal concern about the harm caused by these substances.

[gonzomax]

Privatized prisons would fiercely fight against legalization. But the cost saving would be huge in all other sectors of law enforcement. Overdoses would diminish. Breaking and entering, robberies for drug money would drop. Cops being bribed by drug bosses would drop. Pushers would have no incentive to expand the business. Whats not to like.
We waste billions on bribing and enforcing in foreign lands. They are some of the nastiest governments on the planet.

[griffin1977]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

There is a genuine societal concern about the harm caused by these substances.

Quite, but the fact is making drugs Illegal is a very BAD way of reducing that harm. All the arguments related the relative harm cause by various drugs is kind of irrelevant to the case in point.

I can legally go and buy a bottle of bleach and take a swig of it, without breaking any laws, why should the same not to apply to marajuana/heroin/meth. Simply because damaging my body with those substances is more enjoyable ?

[lekatt]

Originally Posted by Jamaika a jamaikaiaké

Cite?

This is a whoosh, right?

Most will know the information from history, but if you don't just look it up. Check out the countries where drugs are easy to get or legal and find out. People who want to legalize illegal drugs are only thinking of themselves.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by lekatt

You are wrong in the assumption drug use would not increase. Legal or free drugs were tried in many countries over the years, China, Britain, Holland, and here in the US where drugs were freely given to addicts. Use increased tremendously and all the programs were stopped or heavily restricted. If you want to destroy a country, just make illegal drugs legal. Very bad idea. As for cites, they are available via the Internet.

Cites, please. And cites that the problems were worse before prohibition than after.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Why is there this persistent belief that if heroin were legal overdoses would cease?

Is that some kind of a whoosh? Just because presumably purity can be regulated if heroin were legal doesn't magically make people want to stop trying to achieve a better high.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Why is there this persistent belief that if heroin were legal overdoses would cease?

Please provide a cite that there is such a belief.

[gonzomax]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A963958260
Overdosing is generally due to a mixture that is too hot. There is no oversight and no body in position to judge quality and strength. Legalization would eliminate back yard cookeries.

[NajaNivea]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Cites, please. And cites that the problems were worse before prohibition than after.

I think it's sort of cute that people keep asking, as though he's ever actually going to provide them. Shows pluck!

[Gozu]

Originally Posted by lekatt

Most will know the information from history, but if you don't just look it up. Check out the countries where drugs are easy to get or legal and find out. People who want to legalize illegal drugs are only thinking of themselves.

They're easy to get right here in the U.S. You just have to want to look.

You can never stop people from intoxicating themselves because they're sad, bored or hurting. What you want to do is make sure they know exactly what they're getting into when they start taking a drug. Then you also make sure there are accessible programs for detox, rehab and counseling.

Do this in a competitive manner and strive to keep the numbers of problematic addicts going steadily down towards zero.

[coffeecat]

Originally Posted by lekatt

Most will know the information from history, but if you don't just look it up. Check out the countries where drugs are easy to get or legal and find out. People who want to legalize illegal drugs are only thinking of themselves.

Which countries did you have in mind? Holland isn't a third-world country, even though marijuana's legal there, and Pakistan isn't a paradise, even though alcohol's illegal there.

[snailboy]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Why is there this persistent belief that if heroin were legal overdoses would cease?

Is that some kind of a whoosh? Just because presumably purity can be regulated if heroin were legal doesn't magically make people want to stop trying to achieve a better high.

This may hold true for cocaine, but not for heroin. With heroin, taking more doesn't always feel better. There's a peak. If you take a little more, you'll feel nauseous and sick. Take more and you'll experience mild respiratory and cardiac depression which usually isn't fatal. You really have to hammer down on the heroin to have a life-threatening overdose. Newbies will still probably sometimes overdose, although I believe if heroin was regulated and more consistent, it would be more clear what an appropiate dose for a user without a tolerance should be. Overdoses by addicts would virtually stop.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Please provide a cite that there is such a belief.

I meant amongst the posters in this thread. At least two posters mentioned this. That's my cite. Snailboy had a reasoned reply as to why above.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by snailboy

This may hold true for cocaine, but not for heroin. With heroin, taking more doesn't always feel better. There's a peak. If you take a little more, you'll feel nauseous and sick. Take more and you'll experience mild respiratory and cardiac depression which usually isn't fatal. You really have to hammer down on the heroin to have a life-threatening overdose. Newbies will still probably sometimes overdose, although I believe if heroin was regulated and more consistent, it would be more clear what an appropiate dose for a user without a tolerance should be. Overdoses by addicts would virtually stop.

But that's just it. Don't heroin users experience rapid transition into tolerance, thereby upping the dosages needed to maintain a satisfactory fix? And doesn't that in itself make the user more likely to overdose, or simply wear their body out very prematurely due to abuse?

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

But that's just it. Don't heroin users experience rapid transition into tolerance, thereby upping the dosages needed to maintain a satisfactory fix? And doesn't that in itself make the user more likely to overdose. . .

As tolerance increases, so to does the amount of heroin needed to be dangerous.

. . . or simply wear their body out very prematurely due to abuse?

Opiates, unlike (for example) alcohol, don't ravage the internal organs. All else being equal, it's much safer to be a heroin addict than an alcoholic. It's just that, with drug laws being what they are, all else is never equal.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

But what about the children?!

They should be at home playing Grand Theft Auto where you can keep an eye on them as they learn what life under the drug war is like.

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_103600.html Here is what it does. Strengthens the resistance to law enforcement.

[Stan Shmenge]

While some police may oppose the drug war, it will never be anything but a small minority. Most LEO's support the drug war for a variety of reasons-

-They are fundamentalists. Many LEO's are Fundie Christians, and many agencies have a de-facto requirement that recruits must be Fundie Christian. For those types, drugs=pleasure=sin=punishment required.

-They are cynical profiteers. The more people arrested, jailed, on probation, etc. = more jobs for friends and relatives, more promotions, etc. Drug seizure laws = legalized stealing for the department and even officers. There are plenty of cops who have split up the goodies. Ever notice how a lot of cops have fancy toys, boats, atv's, etc.?

-They were never invited to hang with the cool kids in school. You know, the ones who smoked pot and did x and had a lot of sex? Ever notice how a lot of cops are the type who would be considered dorks if they didn't have a uniform, a gun, and a source for steroids? They are simply avenging their adolescent envy and loneliness.

Often it is a combination of all three.

If you are looking for people to oppose the idiot War on Drugs, I don't think cops are a very verdant field to harvest in.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by lekatt

Most will know the information from history, but if you don't just look it up. Check out the countries where drugs are easy to get or legal and find out. People who want to legalize illegal drugs are only thinking of themselves.

Are you cracked, man? Do you not know what 'cite' means? It means that my understanding of history is contrary to yours, and so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claims.

Originally Posted by NajaNivea

I think it's sort of cute that people keep asking, as though he's ever actually going to provide them. Shows pluck!

Awwwwww....

[lekatt]

Originally Posted by Jamaika a jamaikaiaké

Are you cracked, man? Do you not know what 'cite' means? It means that my understanding of history is contrary to yours, and so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claims.

Awwwwww....

I know what cite means, just get tired of doing your work for you. In the real world if you want to know something you look it up for yourself instead of waiting for others to do it for you.