Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:52 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 321
Why should we keep popular recreational use drugs illegal?

So to specify the drugs I'm talking about here, cocaine herion weed etc.. Most drugs you would come across when wanting to have a good time, not drugs specifically targeted towards medical purposes. Why should we keep these illegal? It seems counter productive considering prohibition, and violent crime as result of black market activity. If we legalized most of these drugs then we could kill a lot of the profits drug cartels make. When we make things illegal they seem to become more potent, abused more often, and have more dangerous side effects as a result of lack of research and regulation.

If the government stops murdering and disenfranchising citizens over drugs will everything become better?
  #2  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:58 AM
Hilarity N. Suze Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 7,738
I think Portugal decriminalized all drugs and since then has seen a drop in virtually all the bad things supposedly caused by drugs (ODs, HIV, drug-related crime). No idea why this wouldn't work anywhere.
  #3  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:59 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,820
To be consistent, you should also then make prescription drugs available to all comers.
  #4  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:16 AM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,104
OP: we've done that with two major recreational drugs: alcohol and cigarettes. There have been massive negative consequences: about 480,000 people die every year from cigarette smoking for example. Are the negative consequences of all illegal drugs greater than the negative consequences of 480,000 deaths per year?
  #5  
Old 12-12-2018, 04:43 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
OP: we've done that with two major recreational drugs: alcohol and cigarettes. There have been massive negative consequences: about 480,000 people die every year from cigarette smoking for example. Are the negative consequences of all illegal drugs greater than the negative consequences of 480,000 deaths per year?
You say that... But it's widely accepted that alcohol prohibition was a total mess, and historically a very bad idea. We tried banning it; the result was the rise of organized crime to fill the black market, the rise of stronger forms of alcohol as people needed to smuggle it in higher concentrations, and a rise in corruption, as federal officials couldn't help but get in on the money flowing through the black market.

We currently have a prohibition on Marijuana, and yet more than half the US population has tried it, and regardless of where you are it's fairly trivial to find someone who knows someone, (if you catch my drift). As a result, it's hardly a surprise that we've seen a whopping 1.2%-point increase in marijuana use after legalization - people who wanted weed before knew how to get weed. Meanwhile, the consequences of marijuana prohibition include a massive rise in prison populations, the criminalization of an entire generation, and (to the degree that marijuana use is fungible with alcohol use - and I will admit this is entirely anecdotal on my end and not based on any stronger evidence I am aware of) a possible increase in drinking, which is far worse.

Ultimately, the question of "is prohibiting a drug worth the cost of prohibiting a drug" comes down to the drug. With marijuana, we have a very clear picture - the answer is "no". Obviously, definitely, no question whatsoever, marijuana prohibition is a colossal failure that should be relegated to the ashheap of history as soon as humanly possible. But this should come as no surprise, given what we learned about alcohol prohibition.

See, given that alcohol prohibition was, on balance, a huge failure, we have a baseline for how dangerous and addictive a drug needs to be before prohibition makes all that much sense. And the thing is, experts generally agree that alcohol is actually really, really bad. (I'm explicitly disregarding Nutt et al. 2010, which ranks alcohol above heroin in terms of harm and is seen as flawed for a lot of reasons.) You find charts like these, which show that alcohol has a high dependency factor and an extremely high Active Dose:Lethal Dose ratio. It's phenomenally harmful; far closer to Cocaine than Marijuana. This means that, ultimately, prohibition for most drugs is more likely to be, on balance, a failure. This includes things like LSD, Psylocibin, MDMA/Amphetamines, Ketamine, and many more. It should not come as a surprise, then, that Portugal's decriminalization experiment is yielding predominately positive results. I think most people agree that Heroin should remain illegal, and that we shouldn't legalize cocaine or crystal meth. These drugs are extremely harmful and incredibly addictive. But at this point, I think anything that doesn't reach that level of "clearly fucking awful and incredibly addictive" should be up for grabs. Because that's pretty much where alcohol is.

Or to put it on a more personal level: gimme my goddamn stimulants and psychoactives and get off my case!

(I recognize that this model is possibly missing a few factors; the most notable one that comes to mind is that alcohol was extremely culturally prevalent and that therefore people had a huge incentive to work around prohibition. However, the fact that marijuana only barely ticked up after legalization seems to indicate to me that we won't see a huge increase in the number of people taking drugs like LSD or MDMA post-legalization; demand for drugs is famously inelastic.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-12-2018 at 04:45 AM.
  #6  
Old 12-12-2018, 04:44 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,753
Cigarettes were never illegal.

I'm all for the decriminalization of all illegal drugs. If people want to stick a needle in their arm they'll find a way. Why not take all of that out of criminal hands?

I guess that's the libertarian viewpoint.
  #7  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:13 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
To be consistent, you should also then make prescription drugs available to all comers.
Prescription drugs are meant to treat medical conditions. If pot were falsely advertised as curing cancer I could see the FDA/FTC cracking down on its sale for that purpose.

Other than false and/or unproven medical claims, I agree and I don't see why you need a prescription for prescription drugs as long as you're paying with your own money.

I do however think the amount and quality of the drugs should also be regulated. Any substance that's recognized as a "drug", prescription or recreational, should be properly labelled, and the label should list the proper strength of each drug and not leave anything out. With the exception of minimally processed natural products such as opium and pot where it would be overly burdensome on small producers to measure and regulate the amounts of the various substances in each batch.

This would substantially diminish the lethality of the opioid epidemic, since addicts could buy their maintenance opioids at your friendly pharmacy without the fear of fentanyl.
  #8  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:22 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,533
We shouldn't. Legalize, tax, and regulate them. Put tax receipts into education and rehabilitation. And efficiently dispose of any corpses.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #9  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:50 AM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
So to specify the drugs I'm talking about here, cocaine herion weed etc.. Most drugs you would come across when wanting to have a good time, not drugs specifically targeted towards medical purposes. Why should we keep these illegal? It seems counter productive considering prohibition, and violent crime as result of black market activity. If we legalized most of these drugs then we could kill a lot of the profits drug cartels make. When we make things illegal they seem to become more potent, abused more often, and have more dangerous side effects as a result of lack of research and regulation.

If the government stops murdering and disenfranchising citizens over drugs will everything become better?
I think it should first be stated that heroin and cocaine are very different than marijuana. From just about any angle you look at it from. Very simplified, marijuana isn't likely to cause you to lose your house, your teeth, your family, your money etc. You also can't OD on marijuana. Accidentally smoke way too much? Kids got into the edibles? You're/they're going to be really, really high, but they'll be 100% back to normal in a few hours. In fact, every time you hear about someone hospitalized for anything related to (pure/unlaced/real) marijuana, it's because they got so stoned they panicked or their kids got into it and they took them to the ER. All the ER does is keep you calm (pharmaceutically or otherwise) until the high wears off.
Coke and heroin, on the other hand does have the ability to kill you. Whether your heart explodes or your breathing is depressed, dropping dead right then and there is a real possibility.

Having said that, I like me some drugs and would love for them to be legal, but coke and heroin, I doubt, will ever be legal due to the dangers.

I do understand that being illegal causes an often dangerous black market. Violence, products that are laced*, more difficult to get help etc. But you end up with a Catch-22, especially with things like pot. It's illegal because you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't do it because it's illegal. Ask lawmaker why they vote to keep marijuana laws as they are and see if you get a better answer than 'because [I think] you shouldn't do it'.

Something else, fines for drug crimes are a huge money maker for the government. Or, at least local governments that write tickets but aren't footing the bill for inmates and addicts. I don't know, but I'd guess that a tax on marijuana sales would bring in more than jailing people. Plus, the local and state government would likely see more income from it.


*Just a few weeks ago I was talking to a friend and mentioned that back in college I'd snort, smoke or swallow anything you'd put in front of me. It seems that nowadays, that blow you bought might get you a nice buzz or you might OD on fentanyl 10 minutes later. Don't know why they're putting fentanyl in everything these days, but it's enough to keep me away (even though I haven't done anything like that since college).
  #10  
Old 12-12-2018, 09:10 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
*Just a few weeks ago I was talking to a friend and mentioned that back in college I'd snort, smoke or swallow anything you'd put in front of me. It seems that nowadays, that blow you bought might get you a nice buzz or you might OD on fentanyl 10 minutes later. Don't know why they're putting fentanyl in everything these days, but it's enough to keep me away (even though I haven't done anything like that since college).
Fentanyl is incredibly potent - a tiny amount of fentanyl goes a really long way. This is useful for smuggling operations. It's also dirt-cheap, and you can't tell the difference at a glance (or without a chemical test).
  #11  
Old 12-12-2018, 09:19 AM
boffking boffking is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Prescription drugs are meant to treat medical conditions. If pot were falsely advertised as curing cancer I could see the FDA/FTC cracking down on its sale for that purpose.

Other than false and/or unproven medical claims, I agree and I don't see why you need a prescription for prescription drugs as long as you're paying with your own money.

I do however think the amount and quality of the drugs should also be regulated. Any substance that's recognized as a "drug", prescription or recreational, should be properly labelled, and the label should list the proper strength of each drug and not leave anything out. With the exception of minimally processed natural products such as opium and pot where it would be overly burdensome on small producers to measure and regulate the amounts of the various substances in each batch.

This would substantially diminish the lethality of the opioid epidemic, since addicts could buy their maintenance opioids at your friendly pharmacy without the fear of fentanyl.
What about antibiotics? Even if all other drugs are openly available for purchase, antibiotics have a special risk. Taking them without the instruction of a doctor can lead to resistant bacteria that spread to others.
  #12  
Old 12-12-2018, 09:53 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 50,863
Illegal drugs mean a lot of money for criminals, and prescription drugs mean a lot of money for drug companies. Neither group is going to go for that.

I think all drugs should be over the counter.
  #13  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:33 AM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
OP: we've done that with two major recreational drugs: alcohol and cigarettes. There have been massive negative consequences: about 480,000 people die every year from cigarette smoking for example. Are the negative consequences of all illegal drugs greater than the negative consequences of 480,000 deaths per year?
Tobacco deaths have what, exactly, to do with marijuana?

If you want to argue that cigarettes should be illegal, go ahead, but it's unrelated to other drugs.
  #14  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:44 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 50,863
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people. Shooting and snorting drugs or drinking alcohol affects no one, as long as you don't drive.
  #15  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:50 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people. Shooting and snorting drugs or drinking alcohol affects no one, as long as you don't drive.
Given the relative rarity of alcohol overdose deaths, that's a pretty big "as long as". In fact, as Scott Alexander details here, whether or not marijuana legalization leads to more or less (due to substitution effects with alcohol) traffic accidents is probably the single largest factor in judging whether ending prohibition is a good idea or not - and that calculation seems to be leaning towards "more". Compared to damages from DUIs, second-hand smoke is a rounding error.
  #16  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:52 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Prescription drugs are meant to treat medical conditions. If pot were falsely advertised as curing cancer I could see the FDA/FTC cracking down on its sale for that purpose.

Other than false and/or unproven medical claims, I agree and I don't see why you need a prescription for prescription drugs as long as you're paying with your own money.
Good plan, let's cut out doctors and pharmacists from the process of people getting the right drugs in the right dosages at the right time to treat their conditions.

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard on here in a very long time.

It's not mean old Uncle Sam preventing you from having your fun, it's making sure that idiots don't take Z-packs for "the flu", when they have allergies. Or taking opiate cough suppressants and becoming addicted. Or any number of other pitfalls and dangers involved with the dosage, frequency and interactions of prescription drugs.
  #17  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:57 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 50,863
When I refused a (prescription) drug by saying "I don't do drugs," I was actually told "That's not drugs, that's medication."

What is the difference? Does the same drug have a different effect if it's prescribed?

When I broke my arm, the E/R people practically begged me to take a prescription for a pain killer (and I can only guess what that would do, combined with my addictive personality)> I got along fine with Tylenol and Aleve. Lot cheaper and safer too.
  #18  
Old 12-12-2018, 11:23 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,534
I'll one up you. I want to not only see them legal, but see them given for free at government run clinics. Don't just kill the black market, completely eliminate it. Give control to the government - they can institute age limits and keep drug users in a safe environment while high. The biggest problem with drugs is the criminality that it brings. If they're free, then you crush cartels and you help to eliminate the need to steal to support the habit. It would stop the spread of infectious disease and risk of overdose and I personally think it would lower the number of addicts since it would lower the amount of illicit drugs by quite a bit, so lower the number of drugs out there for first exposure. It also puts addicts in contact with people that can help their addiction should they wish to discontinue it. It would also give us more geopolitical power over drug producing areas. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. They're making a large amount of money on opium production. Make the farmers able to sell directly to the US government and it limits Taliban support.

Last edited by senoy; 12-12-2018 at 11:23 AM.
  #19  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:38 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
I'll one up you. I want to not only see them legal, but see them given for free at government run clinics. Don't just kill the black market, completely eliminate it. Give control to the government - they can institute age limits and keep drug users in a safe environment while high. The biggest problem with drugs is the criminality that it brings. If they're free, then you crush cartels and you help to eliminate the need to steal to support the habit. It would stop the spread of infectious disease and risk of overdose and I personally think it would lower the number of addicts since it would lower the amount of illicit drugs by quite a bit, so lower the number of drugs out there for first exposure. It also puts addicts in contact with people that can help their addiction should they wish to discontinue it. It would also give us more geopolitical power over drug producing areas. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. They're making a large amount of money on opium production. Make the farmers able to sell directly to the US government and it limits Taliban support.
Why should my taxes go for funding this? I work check to check for the things I have. I don't need more of my money thrown away on degenerates wasting their life.
  #20  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:41 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Why should my taxes go for funding this? I work check to check for the things I have. I don't need more of my money thrown away on degenerates wasting their life.
You would hopefully save money in the long run. It would lower health care costs and prison costs, as well as insurance premiums. Ultimately, the goal would be to have very few people on harder drugs. Everything is cost and benefit analysis. It's like needle exchange programs. You can spend a little bit of money on needles or you can spend a lot treating Hepatitis outbreaks. You can spend a little bit of money giving junkies their fix, or you can worry every morning that your car is missing from your driveway or that your home will be broken into. We can spend a ton of money fighting the Taliban or spend that money stabilizing Afghanistan. We can spend a ton of money on drug interdiction and combatting gang violence or spend that money controlling the drug trade. It's all about tradeoffs and priorities and if yours is simply to horde as much of your wealth as you can, then there's little I can do to convince you otherwise. If your priority though is a more stable and safe society, then maybe my plan has merit.
  #21  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:01 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people. Shooting and snorting drugs or drinking alcohol affects no one, as long as you don't drive.
Really? What about domestic violence? People who can't do their jobs because they're zonked out? etc.
  #22  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:03 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
I think all drugs should be over the counter.
How about thalidomide? THAT was OTC in some parts of Europe, used as a sedative or sleeping aid, and look what that led to.
  #23  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:07 PM
Tatterdemalion Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
How about thalidomide? THAT was OTC in some parts of Europe, used as a sedative or sleeping aid, and look what that led to.
Seriously effective arms control?
  #24  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:21 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,820
On the other hand, we're all assuming that there will be no major negative effect of legalized drugs.

Accounts of China before the Opium Wars are that vast numbers of the Chinese were becoming addicts, listless and wasted all of the time, and hurting the economy as well as themselves. Now that could just be a false viewpoint by a conservative government, unrelated to actual data.

But it could well be that the legality of marijuana, opiates, etc. could start to prove to be untenable. We should all be clear that we are running an experiment of which we don't really have a strong idea of how it might play out over the next few generations. And some things do take a few generations to show their full impact - as cultural norms are slowly adjusted by underlying reality of the change.
  #25  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:26 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I think it should first be stated that heroin and cocaine are very different than marijuana. From just about any angle you look at it from.
While true enough, from the angle of landing in jail/prison for possession, the difference becomes vanishing. Incarceration can fuck up your life drastically, often moreso than merely the act of getting fucked up on a substance. Locking people up for this is grossly unproductive all around when just a treatment program would make more sense.

As long as the hard stuff is off limits, the supply chain will behave like Altria/RJR/Lorillard/etc, doing their best to facilitate demand for their product. By which I mean if it were taken off the black market, there might be stringent regulation that could lead to efforts to mitigate the addictiveness of the substances – I believe that this is a likely possibility, to produce substances that provide a sufficient fix with reduced addiction potential. There is no way to try to move in that direction when the hard stuff is strictly illegal.
  #26  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:35 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,245
Even cocaine isn't comparable to heroin. A lot of people have dabbled in cocaine, it can indeed be used "recreationally" on an on-and-off basis; yeah people can develop addiction to it, but that's true of alcohol too. Heroin isn't "recreational." The margins for error are a hell of a lot smaller.
  #27  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:37 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,518
Here’s my question about the whole issue: we acknowledge that some drugs are way worse than others, like meth, heroin, and opiates. Yet whenever someone suggests legalizing their recreational use, they tend (in my memory) to hand wave that fewer people will use those drugs once the panoply of currently illicit substances is available to them.

My question is, why do people make this assumption? If these substances are that “good” when they’re illegal, why would people not use them regardless? And if that’s the case, why should I not be concerned about meth, heroin, and opiates being generally available to the public?
  #28  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:54 PM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
I'll one up you. I want to not only see them legal, but see them given for free at government run clinics. Don't just kill the black market, completely eliminate it. Give control to the government - they can institute age limits and keep drug users in a safe environment while high.
So after shooting up, tooting up, toking up or keeping down your complementary government funded fix, line, rock or good olde fashioned bourbon & buttermilk enema with a little Danish angel dust stirred in (in enthusiast slang, a so-called "Goober 'n' Gomer") will there be any entertainment options at the clinic for those wo choose to indulge?

Perhaps free snacks, drinks or use of "privacy cabins" for those couples feeling amorous after their stone sets in?

Maybe special holiday themed promotions, i.e., a Crackhead Christmas Carol Choir sing-a-long?

Taco & Tramadol Tuesdays?

Fajita & freebase Fridays?

I am sure that your heartland working class types who are surviving paycheck to paycheck will be thrilled to see all the 20-something Seattle slackers on the nightly news rioting for "Extra Rations" during long holiday weekends.

It's out-of-the-box thinking like this that will win the hearts & minds of all right thinking Americans.
  #29  
Old 12-12-2018, 04:27 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
So after shooting up, tooting up, toking up or keeping down your complementary government funded fix, line, rock or good olde fashioned bourbon & buttermilk enema with a little Danish angel dust stirred in (in enthusiast slang, a so-called "Goober 'n' Gomer") will there be any entertainment options at the clinic for those wo choose to indulge?

Perhaps free snacks, drinks or use of "privacy cabins" for those couples feeling amorous after their stone sets in?

Maybe special holiday themed promotions, i.e., a Crackhead Christmas Carol Choir sing-a-long?

Taco & Tramadol Tuesdays?

Fajita & freebase Fridays?

I am sure that your heartland working class types who are surviving paycheck to paycheck will be thrilled to see all the 20-something Seattle slackers on the nightly news rioting for "Extra Rations" during long holiday weekends.

It's out-of-the-box thinking like this that will win the hearts & minds of all right thinking Americans.
The only argument that I see against it is that you don't want to pay for it. Sure, but I ask you whether or not you think it would work. Legalizing them is putting a profit motive in the hand of private companies to encourage drug addiction. That to me is foolish. Sure, you may hurt the cartels, but I think we know exactly what large corporations do with addictive substances and it's not 'look out for the public good.'

Selling them for profit in government dispensaries is perhaps a way around this, but it still allows for a large amount of non-control. How are people getting addicted to drugs in the first place? It's usually them being offered by a friend at a party and they are curious. My plan gets rid of the parties and makes the friend have to ask you to go to a clinic with them to try your drugs. At the clinic, people can be there to make sure you know the consequences of your decision.

The bottom line is that junkies are gonna get their fix. They always do because it's the only thing in life that they crave. Heroin addiction is horrible. If they have to lie, cheat, steal or kill to get their next hit, that's how it's going to go down. I'm saying eliminate those elements. Put them in a safe space where they don't have to lie, cheat, steal or whatever to get their hit. Make sure that people that are new to drug use fully and completely understand what that means. Verify their ages so that they are going in fully aware of the consequences of 'just one hit.' Undercut the cartels on price by so much that they can't afford to stay in business and they have no impetus to find new users and new markets.

And I get that you don't want YOUR money going to junkies. Well, I don't want MY money going to locking up 2.5 MILLION people a year. I don't want MY money going to pay for police officers that are in constant fear of their life from strung out junkies looking for their next hit. I don't want MY money going for indigent healthcare for yet another generation of addicts. I do want MY money going for solutions that might be outside the box, but definitely what we're doing now ain't working and hasn't worked for 50 years, so maybe it's time we try something new.
  #30  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:09 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
The only argument that I see against it is that you don't want to pay for it. Sure, but I ask you whether or not you think it would work. Legalizing them is putting a profit motive in the hand of private companies to encourage drug addiction. That to me is foolish. Sure, you may hurt the cartels, but I think we know exactly what large corporations do with addictive substances and it's not 'look out for the public good.'

Selling them for profit in government dispensaries is perhaps a way around this, but it still allows for a large amount of non-control. How are people getting addicted to drugs in the first place? It's usually them being offered by a friend at a party and they are curious. My plan gets rid of the parties and makes the friend have to ask you to go to a clinic with them to try your drugs. At the clinic, people can be there to make sure you know the consequences of your decision.

The bottom line is that junkies are gonna get their fix. They always do because it's the only thing in life that they crave. Heroin addiction is horrible. If they have to lie, cheat, steal or kill to get their next hit, that's how it's going to go down. I'm saying eliminate those elements. Put them in a safe space where they don't have to lie, cheat, steal or whatever to get their hit. Make sure that people that are new to drug use fully and completely understand what that means. Verify their ages so that they are going in fully aware of the consequences of 'just one hit.' Undercut the cartels on price by so much that they can't afford to stay in business and they have no impetus to find new users and new markets.

And I get that you don't want YOUR money going to junkies. Well, I don't want MY money going to locking up 2.5 MILLION people a year. I don't want MY money going to pay for police officers that are in constant fear of their life from strung out junkies looking for their next hit. I don't want MY money going for indigent healthcare for yet another generation of addicts. I do want MY money going for solutions that might be outside the box, but definitely what we're doing now ain't working and hasn't worked for 50 years, so maybe it's time we try something new.
You will still have indigent healthcare going to addicts. You will still have cops combating with strung out drug users. The only thing that changes is that these people are getting free drugs to start or continue their addiction.
  #31  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:17 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people. Shooting and snorting drugs or drinking alcohol affects no one, as long as you don't drive.
As long as you dont drive-- or fall asleep with a lit ciggie, etc.

But second hand MJ smoke cant kill anyone, absent some odd allergy.
  #32  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:25 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people. Shooting and snorting drugs or drinking alcohol affects no one, as long as you don't drive.
This is idiotic.
  #33  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:32 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Why should my taxes go for funding this? I work check to check for the things I have. I don't need more of my money thrown away on degenerates wasting their life.
Are you worried about cost, or is that a distraction?

If you are worried about cost, lets talk about how expensive the war on drugs has been, from police resources, trials, through incarceration. If it costs less to let the degenerates waste their lives, would that sway you?
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #34  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:37 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
This is idiotic.
(Like button)
  #35  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:41 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
When I refused a (prescription) drug by saying "I don't do drugs," I was actually told "That's not drugs, that's medication."

What is the difference? Does the same drug have a different effect if it's prescribed?

When I broke my arm, the E/R people practically begged me to take a prescription for a pain killer (and I can only guess what that would do, combined with my addictive personality)> I got along fine with Tylenol and Aleve. Lot cheaper and safer too.
When I was in pharmacy school in the early 1990s, there was a program called "Katy's Kids", aimed at grade-schoolers, which taught them about the difference between "drugs" and medicine. This was started after reports that children were refusing to take medications for things like epilepsy and asthma after finding they were drugs, and thinking they were harmful in some way. I never participated, but one of my friends did; a group of them took turns going to schools, and the shortest one among them would put on a kangaroo suit with "KATY" across the belly.

Several years later, I was telling a colleague about this, and she said that she'd done something similar at her kids' school, only her talk described the difference between drugs, medicine, and poison. That's also an important distinction.
  #36  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:43 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Here’s my question about the whole issue: we acknowledge that some drugs are way worse than others, like meth, heroin, and opiates. Yet whenever someone suggests legalizing their recreational use, they tend (in my memory) to hand wave that fewer people will use those drugs once the panoply of currently illicit substances is available to them.

My question is, why do people make this assumption? If these substances are that “good” when they’re illegal, why would people not use them regardless? And if that’s the case, why should I not be concerned about meth, heroin, and opiates being generally available to the public?
I don't think I've heard that.
What I have heard is that legalizing marijuana may cause a decrease in abuse of other, harder drugs. The theory being that marijuana isn't a gateway drug that leads to others, but rather it's grouped in with all the others due to being illegal. If I could go to the store and buy some weed, that's what I'd do. On the other hand, if I have to go to my dealers house to buy it, he might happen to have some coke or ecstasy or percocets...and as long as I'm there, maybe I'll try/buy some. Similar to an impulse buy.
Make marijuana legal and a lot of people will never get into the harder drugs because they aren't casually introduced to them.
  #37  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:53 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Why should my taxes go for funding this? I work check to check for the things I have. I don't need more of my money thrown away on degenerates wasting their life.
You may be looking at this backwards. If you have to work, say, 60 hours a week to get by, and are a couple paychecks away from living in your car or a cardboard box, I would suggest that there are other aspects of our system that could use some revision. You can resent the junkies for getting free fixes, or you can redirect your peeves at the people who are sodomizing your life to get themselves even more profit.
  #38  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:57 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
You may be looking at this backwards. If you have to work, say, 60 hours a week to get by, and are a couple paychecks away from living in your car or a cardboard box, I would suggest that there are other aspects of our system that could use some revision. You can resent the junkies for getting free fixes, or you can redirect your peeves at the people who are sodomizing your life to get themselves even more profit.
There are a lot of aspects of our society that need revised.
  #39  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:20 PM
Smapti Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,503
I'm perfectly OK with marijuana being made legal, and probably most hallucinogens as well - LSD, mushrooms, maybe ecstasy.

Cocaine, meth, heroin, PCP, and the like? That's a public health hazard. Alcohol is as well, granted, but as stated above prohibiting alcohol is simply unworkable given that literally anyone with access to yeast and a sugary liquid can make their own.
  #40  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:51 AM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
How are people getting addicted to drugs in the first place? It's usually them being offered by a friend at a party and they are curious. My plan gets rid of the parties and makes the friend have to ask you to go to a clinic with them to try your drugs. At the clinic, people can be there to make sure you know the consequences of your decision.
I am still new around here, but this has to be an attempt at parody, right?

Frankly, the ludicrous, almost farcical idea that drug users, (both hard-core, homeless street addicts or novice recreational users from privileged, pampered, 1%-Percenter backgrounds alike) would be content to limit their psychoactive drug usage to clinical settings, under the watchful eye of government employees, as opposed to say the freedom, comfort and privacy of a seedy, run-down Quiznos bathroom stall or the excitement and allure of a glamourous destination 3 day music festival, makes it seem to me like you are not familiar with even the very basics of human nature, at least when it comes to this particular aspect of it.

That is without mentioning the fact that not even the most ultra-liberal, progressive Scandanavian countries wouldn't go for something this extreme, as if for no other reason supporters would be comitting political suicide.
--------------------------
"Candidate Senoy says he supports providing our country's 18 year-old children with free, government funded yet highly addictive, intoxicating narcotic drugs, including cocaine, heroin and hallucinogenic cacti, and earmarking the American taxpayer's hard earned money for clinics where users would even be allowed to smoke, play penny backgammon or listen to anti-social "Gangster Rappers" music while under the pernicious influence of these vile poisons."

"I am Candidate XYZ, and I say NO to wasting taxpayers money, NO to Gangster Rappers and NO to government supplied hallucinogenic cacti!"

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 12-13-2018 at 09:52 AM.
  #41  
Old 12-13-2018, 10:09 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I am still new around here, but this has to be an attempt at parody, right?

Frankly, the ludicrous, almost farcical idea that drug users, (both hard-core, homeless street addicts or novice recreational users from privileged, pampered, 1%-Percenter backgrounds alike) would be content to limit their psychoactive drug usage to clinical settings, under the watchful eye of government employees, as opposed to say the freedom, comfort and privacy of a seedy, run-down Quiznos bathroom stall or the excitement and allure of a glamourous destination 3 day music festival, makes it seem to me like you are not familiar with even the very basics of human nature, at least when it comes to this particular aspect of it.

That is without mentioning the fact that not even the most ultra-liberal, progressive Scandanavian countries wouldn't go for something this extreme, as if for no other reason supporters would be comitting political suicide.
--------------------------
"Candidate Senoy says he supports providing our country's 18 year-old children with free, government funded yet highly addictive, intoxicating narcotic drugs, including cocaine, heroin and hallucinogenic cacti, and earmarking the American taxpayer's hard earned money for clinics where users would even be allowed to smoke, play penny backgammon or listen to anti-social "Gangster Rappers" music while under the pernicious influence of these vile poisons."

"I am Candidate XYZ, and I say NO to wasting taxpayers money, NO to Gangster Rappers and NO to government supplied hallucinogenic cacti!"
The political feasibility doesn't mean it's not a good idea. The fact that the drugs are free I think is the selling point. There will always be people that want their drugs at their own convenience, but 'free' is a pretty difficult thing to compete with. It drops demand to the point where many illegal pipelines become unprofitable. It would lower margins on street drugs as well as they have to compete with a dealer with a monopoly on violence and very deep pockets. It also allows us to put pressure on initial suppliers. We would be setting the base price for farmers and manufacturers to sell their goods. We can offer higher prices on the supply side while pushing down prices on the demand side. Eventually, it pushes dealers out of business and significantly lowers the amount of drugs on the street. The smaller the amount of street drugs, the fewer people that will come in contact with it for their initial usage. I would contend that very, very few people are going to be taking their first hit at government clinics. By leveraging the economic power of the government to crimp supply lines, you will have fewer people taking their first hit out of government clinics as well. I'm under no illusions that this plan would eliminate the drug problem. I do think though that it would make massive strides towards that and I think that its biggest benefit is that it will heavily reduce drug related petty crime which I think is what most people hate the most about drug use.

Last edited by senoy; 12-13-2018 at 10:11 AM.
  #42  
Old 12-13-2018, 11:11 AM
Red Wiggler Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I am still new around here, but this has to be an attempt at parody, right?

Frankly, the ludicrous, almost farcical idea that drug users, (both hard-core, homeless street addicts or novice recreational users from privileged, pampered, 1%-Percenter backgrounds alike) would be content to limit their psychoactive drug usage to clinical settings, under the watchful eye of government employees, as opposed to say the freedom, comfort and privacy of a seedy, run-down Quiznos bathroom stall or the excitement and allure of a glamourous destination 3 day music festival, makes it seem to me like you are not familiar with even the very basics of human nature, at least when it comes to this particular aspect of it.

That is without mentioning the fact that not even the most ultra-liberal, progressive Scandanavian countries wouldn't go for something this extreme, as if for no other reason supporters would be comitting political suicide.
--------------------------
"Candidate Senoy says he supports providing our country's 18 year-old children with free, government funded yet highly addictive, intoxicating narcotic drugs, including cocaine, heroin and hallucinogenic cacti, and earmarking the American taxpayer's hard earned money for clinics where users would even be allowed to smoke, play penny backgammon or listen to anti-social "Gangster Rappers" music while under the pernicious influence of these vile poisons."

"I am Candidate XYZ, and I say NO to wasting taxpayers money, NO to Gangster Rappers and NO to government supplied hallucinogenic cacti!"
Let me pose a previously asked question again -- if senoy's system was less expensive than current practices, would you support it? If not, why not?
  #43  
Old 12-13-2018, 11:12 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,104
Legalise the lot. Then tax and quality control them. If someone wants to buy heroin or oxycontin or whatever, let them.
  #44  
Old 12-13-2018, 11:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Legalise the lot. Then tax and quality control them. If someone wants to buy heroin or oxycontin or whatever, let them.
The average life expectancy of opiate addicts is 4 years. Do you really think this is a good idea? Some drugs simply belong in a separate category here.
  #45  
Old 12-13-2018, 11:56 AM
Gorsnak Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
You will still have indigent healthcare going to addicts. You will still have cops combating with strung out drug users. The only thing that changes is that these people are getting free drugs to start or continue their addiction.
If the homeless druggies are getting free drugs, they don't have to commit property crimes to get their next fix. I'd rather pay for their drugs via taxes than fix my garage door and debate whether an insurance claim will cost me more than it will save.
  #46  
Old 12-13-2018, 12:08 PM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Let me pose a previously asked question again -- if senoy's system was less expensive than current practices, would you support it? If not, why not?
I would absolutely, wholeheartedly, 110% support fully legalizing cannabis, cocaine, (most) hallucinogenics and pharmaceutically produced opiates as a means of harm reduction and to reduce organized criminal activity.l

Using taxpayer money to GIVE those same drugs away freely to any & all comers?

That kind of loosebrained, asinine, socialist thinking can just fuck right off.

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 12-13-2018 at 12:10 PM.
  #47  
Old 12-13-2018, 12:22 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I don't think I've heard that.
What I have heard is that legalizing marijuana may cause a decrease in abuse of other, harder drugs. The theory being that marijuana isn't a gateway drug that leads to others, but rather it's grouped in with all the others due to being illegal. If I could go to the store and buy some weed, that's what I'd do. On the other hand, if I have to go to my dealers house to buy it, he might happen to have some coke or ecstasy or percocets...and as long as I'm there, maybe I'll try/buy some. Similar to an impulse buy.
Make marijuana legal and a lot of people will never get into the harder drugs because they aren't casually introduced to them.
Exactly. Also, people are more willing to take the risk of buying pot illegally, because even if you get caught, the consequences are fairly light.

But once you've taken that risk, and see how easy it is to get away with, now you feel emboldened to take bigger risks with harder drugs.
  #48  
Old 12-13-2018, 12:29 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I would absolutely, wholeheartedly, 110% support fully legalizing cannabis, cocaine, (most) hallucinogenics and pharmaceutically produced opiates as a means of harm reduction and to reduce organized criminal activity.l

Using taxpayer money to GIVE those same drugs away freely to any & all comers?

That kind of loosebrained, asinine, socialist thinking can just fuck right off.
The problem with simple legalization is that we know what happens. Usage goes up. You're introducing a profit motive to private companies to encourage people to use. You can attempt to use different kinds of legislation to put clamps on that, but the bottom line is that their bottom line depends on creating addicts and they are going to do whatever it takes to ensure that those addicts exist.

The only way to combat this is to make the supply under the control of institutions that value the public good over their profits. NGOs are an option, but I can't imagine there are too many NGOs out there that want to get into the heroin trade. That means that you're pretty much stuck with the government as the supplier of choice. Once the government is involved on the supply side of things, the goal becomes to eliminate private suppliers. The best way to do that is through cost controls. The issue with cost controls is that the cheaper the drug, the more likely people are to use it. How do you prevent that? Through hardcore propaganda and difficulty in procuring the drug. If you make it too difficult to procure, then a black market opens up and you're back at square one.

So we have to have a method to make something both difficult to procure, but unattractive to private markets. I think that 'free drugs' fits the bill. The number of addicts that will turn down free drugs for the sake of 'I like to shoot up in public bathrooms instead' is going to be very small. Hopefully small enough to dry up the markets. At the same time, going to a clinic is a very conscious choice. First time users are not likely to find 'going to the clinic where you are bombarded with anti-drug messages' a particularly attractive thing either.

This puts a downward pressure on new addicts. At the same time, it lets existing addicts get their fix without needing to resort to crime which impacts the 90% of us that aren't addicted to drugs. It also serves to break the back of distribution networks and gang related violence. When you realize that junkies are mentally ill and maybe the best way to treat that illness shouldn't be 'leave them on the streets to self-medicate via criminal networks.' I think my proposal becomes more palatable.

Listen, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to junkies either. If I could wave a magic wand and make everyone clean and productive, I'd be waving that wand right now. That wand doesn't exist. The best you can do is make painful sacrifices now to hopefully make tomorrow better. I think that my proposal has the chance of being one of those painful sacrifices that mean tomorrow I can have an Amazon package on my front porch for longer than a half hour without it being stolen and I can accidentally leave my front door unlocked without fear of a home invasion. I think maybe sacrificing some tax dollars now to have fewer homeless people panhandling tomorrow might be a worthy sacrifice.

Last edited by senoy; 12-13-2018 at 12:30 PM.
  #49  
Old 12-13-2018, 12:41 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people.
And don't forget the fires. 20-25% of fires are caused by cigarettes. (So the tobacco tax should be raised to cover 25% of the cost of fire departments.)
  #50  
Old 12-13-2018, 12:58 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Smoking cigarettes or marijuana affects other people with "second hand smoke" which can and does kill innocent people.
And don't forget the fires. 20-25% of fires are caused by cigarettes. (So the tobacco tax should be raised to cover 25% of the cost of fire departments.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017