Can someone explain the pros/cons of the war on terror/drugs?

[Saraya]

@Shodan

…that’s why many more people use alcohol than cocaine.

Have you used this point in the Marijuana legalization thread… it’s 100% relevant there or anywhere regarding legalization of these substances.

If Cocaine were legal, it would be abused like alcohol - and unlike alcohol, there is no sorta ‘casual’ approach to the use cocaine.

Marijuana does have a casual approach, but we don’t have a lot of faith in people to exhibit moderation.

Ideally, this should not be a discussion worth merit - from a libertarian stand point, people are free to do as they please regarding this type of thing, however if a substance can make you dangerous to society then it’s problematic. I’ve driven a vehicle while on marijuana, bad idea.

The war on drugs is costly, but the alternative - if you can call it that, is even worse. Today’s world is just not capable of handling it.

[Marley23]

@Saraya

The war on drugs is costly, but the alternative - if you can call it that, is even worse. Today’s world is just not capable of handling it.

Is this conclusion based on any kinds of facts? I don’t think marijuana legalization has destroyed The Netherlands.

[Fuji]

@Shodan

In order to keep other factors equal, one needs to compare, not countries like the Netherlands where marijuana is decriminalized to other countries, but drug use before and after decriminalization in the same locales.

Well, there’s also the example of Portugal, recently discussed in Scientific American:

Originally Posted by Scientific American

'Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he’s skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca.

“Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal,” of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, “and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination.”’

I know the issue is complicated; that’s why I was objecting to your original assertion (“If, therefore, we legalize drugs, they become more available and usage will tend to go up.”).

[Shodan]

@Saraya

Have you used this point in the Marijuana legalization thread… it’s 100% relevant there or anywhere regarding legalization of these substances.

It seems like common sense to me - if you make something illegal, you raise the opportunity costs of using it. And therefore usage tends to go down. Alcohol use (and abuse) went down during Prohibition, after all. Whether or not the benefits are worth the cost is another matter.

Alcohol is, as mentioned, sort of a special case. I don’t think there is any other drug that is as deeply embedded in culture as booze.

If Cocaine were legal, it would be abused like alcohol - and unlike alcohol, there is no sorta ‘casual’ approach to the use cocaine.

Marijuana does have a casual approach, but we don’t have a lot of faith in people to exhibit moderation.

I don’t think anyone would deny that the harm from use, and the likelihood of abuse and addiction, differ greatly from drug to drug. Opiates and alcohol are physically addicting; marijuana is not. The idea (ISTM) should be that the more dangerous and habit-forming a drug is, the more illegal it should be. Unfortunately, it seems that’s not the rationale that is applied. Otherwise marijuana would be legal and nicotine a Schedule I narcotic.

The war on drugs is costly, but the alternative - if you can call it that, is even worse. Today’s world is just not capable of handling it.

I don’t know about that.

Certainly if we legalize something, we are going to get more use of it, and thus more abuse. As far as I am concerned, it’s worth it. I value my freedom to do as I please more than the enhanced safety of knowing that the government will bust me if I get high in non-approved ways.

I am thinking here mostly about marijuana, and possibly other soft drugs like LSD or psilocybin. Meth or heroin are a different matter. Sure, some people are going to toke up and drive and get into accidents, but they do that now with alcohol, and that’s not enough to warrant trying to outlaw alcohol outright. At least to me.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Fuji

Well, there’s also the example of Portugal, recently discussed in Scientific American:

I know the issue is complicated; that’s why I was objecting to your original assertion (“If, therefore, we legalize drugs, they become more available and usage will tend to go up.”).

I guess I should have said “all other things being equal” which they never are. Your cite mentions the global decline, which is a factor unrelated to Portuguese decriminalization.

But I stand by my assertion that illegality raises opportunity costs. If we legalize pot, for instance, those who don’t use now because they cannot buy it at the local grocery, or because they are afraid of being busted, will have that check removed from their behavior. That’s not the same thing as saying drug use will explode, or that someplace will become a drug Mecca. It’s a recognition of the phenomenon that, during Prohibition, alcohol use went down, or that beer is more common in America than cocaine.

And again, it is not an argument that we shouldn’t legalize pot or other drugs. I think we should. But since marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, I believe the increase in usage will not result in significant social costs. At least, not sufficient enough to justify a ban.

Regards,
Shodan

[Fuji]

@Shodan

I guess I should have said “all other things being equal” which they never are. Your cite mentions the global decline, which is a factor unrelated to Portuguese decriminalization.

But I stand by my assertion that illegality raises opportunity costs. If we legalize pot, for instance, those who don’t use now because they cannot buy it at the local grocery, or because they are afraid of being busted, will have that check removed from their behavior. That’s not the same thing as saying drug use will explode, or that someplace will become a drug Mecca. It’s a recognition of the phenomenon that, during Prohibition, alcohol use went down, or that beer is more common in America than cocaine.

And again, it is not an argument that we shouldn’t legalize pot or other drugs. I think we should. But since marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, I believe the increase in usage will not result in significant social costs. At least, not sufficient enough to justify a ban.

Regards,
Shodan

Fair enough.

I just hate all absolutist positions.

[rsat3acr]

[quote=“septimus, post:6, topic:638045”]

My recommendations:

Drugs. Legalise them, except methamphetamine which is especially pernicious. Great new source for government tax revenue.

Sure because heroin, LSD and crack cocaine are so harmless.

[Fuji]

@rsat3acr

Sure because heroin, LSD and crack cocaine are so harmless.

What’s so harmful about LSD?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

pros or cons, depending on which side you’re on:

-The war on drugs to some extent takes the place of Jim Crow.
-It is rumored that the CIA makes money selling drugs.
-It makes the cost of government seem excessive,providing an excuse to fire teachers so that…
-Prisons make more money. And then there is greater leverage on the 13 Amendment- it has a loophole. It outlaws “slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Prison populations = slave labor, see UNICOR.
-TWOT allows for just about any appropriation and any military action. People who pull the strings of government can be empowered by more military spending; Medicare and Social Security, not so much. Get rid of (crowd out funding for) the safety net and people will be easier to exploit -> profit!