No, only physically addictive drugs, I think, belong together. We should also have damaging (physically) drugs (like many claim ecstacy to be) grouped together. And we should finally have non-additive (physically) drugs in the final category. IMHO.
Why must it be apathy and conditioning? Why can’t it be an acceptance that drugs aren’t all that bad, and that they can be available to the general population without a complete societal breakdown of caring?
It isn’t that I think you are wrong or crazy or hyper-conservative, I just think that you’re looking at this like some “either-or” scenario when there doesn’t seem to be a reason to think it is. Does there?
Your right in that I see this as a black and white issue. I don’t have much gray area on this subject matter. I can see marijuana being used for medicinal purposes and I wouldn’t want someone to suffer because we are so hardlined on it. But that is not really the debate. We’re discussing recreational drug use. The question I would pose to you is what is the redeeming quality of drug use? It doesn’t bring families together. It doesn’t strengthen relationships. It doesn’t unite (OK, maybe sometimes). What is the reason? All I can think of is that it feels good. And I am not willing to legalize something that destroys so many lives because for a small minority that can handle it “it feels good”. I just can’t justify that. I mean, a cold drink of water feels good. Sex feels good. Heck, logical debates on SDMB feel good. I am not advocating cutting out all pleasures in our lives. If drugs was not so destructive I’d being on 'em right now. But I just can’t see the logic that allows drugs to be somewhat OK. Maybe you can prove me wrong!
As you can see it is a PDF but that’s all the CDC offered. (percentages are averaged from all the years listed)
[ul][li]53% of the population 12 and over has had an alcoholic drink in the past month. [/li][li]16% engaged in binge drinking in the past month.[/li][li]Since the 90’s, 5% of persons 12 and over have tried marijuana in the past month. One in twenty people.[/li][li]Since the 90’s, 0.8% of people 12 and over have tried cocaine in the past month. About one in one hundred.[/ul][/li]
If that is just use in the past month, what can we say about use ever? Intuitively it should be larger, right? That would be an interesting statistic to find, to make some sort of ratio of semi-regular use (which I would bet would be best indicated by use within the last month) and experimental but not ongoing use (used ever).
If anyone can help me out here I’d love it. ummm sounds willing to listen!
I think there is a first principal at work here that those that are on opposite sides of this issue disagree on, and that is that “He governs best who governs least.” For people that believe in this idea it is irrelevant what the effect of drugs are on the user. The user should be entitled to make their own decisions, and then they should be left with the consequences.
Secondly, have you considered that not only do drugs themselves cause harm, but so too do anti-drug laws. Many people here are arguing that the harm that the anti-drug laws do is worse than the potential harm they seek to prevent by keeping some people from doing drugs. Anti-drug laws destroy families, increase crime, destroy property values, ruin lives etc. too. It is possible to advocate legalization without in anyway endorsing the use of drugs.
What in the name of corn? What makes you think that only a small minority can “handle it.” The overwhelming majority can “handle” drugs, at least in the sense that they do not become physically or psychologically dependent on the drug. Of illegal substances, opiate is the most addictive, and 2/3 of opiate users do not become dependent. The percentage of dependents on other illegal substances is considerably lower for other illegal drugs.
IMO, you are looking at the situation backwards when you are looking for “redeeming qualities” as a needed justification for legalization of drugs. That puts a burden on drugs that we do not apply to anything else. You mention sex later in your post. I think that I’m on solid ground when I say that sex has caused considerably more societal ills than all drugs, legal or illegal, combined. Yet we don’t require sex to prove its “redeeming qualities” before it is legal.
But in any event, in essence we are looking at what is the lesser of evils - prohibition of drugs so as to lower the number of addicts and homes and lives damaged or destroyed by drug use v. the damage caused to society by the criminalization of drugs - higher drugs prices, leading to higher levels of crimes to support a drug habit, mass diversion of public funds into law enforcement and prison building, the creation of a massive prison population and related criminal class, etc.
IMO, and I believe that the studies and social science back me up, the harms caused by criminalization strongly outweigh the harms caused by legalization.
umm… yeahh… I think you miss one of the lessons of your friend’s horrible end: criminalization of drugs did not prevent his death. In fact, it is possible that criminalization contributed to it - the social stigma and fear of prosecution may have stopped your friend from seeking help from his family and going into rehab until it was too late for him to break the addiction.
I guess I feel that saying “Hey it’s their choice. They live with the consequnces” is kinda sidestepping the issue. It does not answer the question: “What good does recreational drug use have?”
**
**
I would contend many of those points. But I don’t think it’s logical to say that crime will decrease substantially with legalization. The idea that gangs will dissapear is ludicrous to me. Gangs don’t exist because of drugs. 70 years ago, gangs dealt in bootlegging and before that in thievery. Drugs are not the product of gangs and gangs are not the product of drugs. You will still have drive-by’s. You will still have turf wars.
I agree that crimes like theft and assault would probably go down. But how about the crimes committed under the influence? How many more people would be driving while high or stoned? How many more vehicular homicides? How many more disfunctional families? I’m sure advocates would say not more than currently but I disagree. I can tell you that if drugs were legal, I probably would have delved into them at some point, just as many do with drinking. And I don’t think I am alone in that.
Of course crime will decrease substantially with legalization. More than half of federal prisoners are in jail on drugs charges. The same is true for 1/4 of all state prisoners. There are 1.5 million arrests each year for drugs charges - about 10% of arrests. 220,000 juveniles were arrested on drugs charges in 1997. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=708550
Assuming that underlying trends in criminal activity remain the same after legalization, crime will emphatically go down because the actions that led to the arrest of 1.5 million people a year will no longer be a crime.
Add to that the reduction in drugs prices, which will lead to a reduction in petty crime, as drug users won’t need to steal as much (or at all) to support their habits.
As for gangs, of course they won’t go away. Criminal gangs have been around for millenia. But we will be depriving them of a predominant source of their income. With smaller incomes, gangs will not be able to support as many members, not buy as many guns, etc. The Mafia was considerably weakened by the end of Prohibition.
Gangs will still be involved in other high margin illegal activities. But none of them (with the distressing exception of people-smuggling) involve anywhere near the profits of drug-smuggling. Less money = less power.
Certainly, all will go up to some extent. There’s no denying that. 'Course, if we took just half of the $28 billion we spend on drugs enforcement and spent it on rehab, anti-drugs ad campaigns (equivalent to Truth[sup]TM[/sup]), and the like, we would still be doubling the amount of money we spend on those activities, and we could probably keep the increase under control (and still save a fortune).
Sex within the confines of a healthy relationship has many redeeming qualities. It builds love and support between partners and is a great expression of love. And it feels good (but I guess I can’t use that since I won’t allow it for drug use). Also, having sex 3 times a day won’t kill you (unless you gots a bad ticker). Sure, you’ve got a lot of people who commit sex related crimes, just as you do with drugs. But that doesn’t take away the redeeming qualities of sex. Wheras with drugs, I have yet to hear a redeeming quality. I am more addressing what it does to the person abusing it. Masturbating 5 times a day won’t kill ya but shooting up probably will.
Sorry this post is really fragmented. I am at work at keep getting interrupted. I hate it when work gets in the way! I’ll try to address more later. I didn’t get to clarify as much as I wanted and I am fully expecting getting taken to town on this point!
It does not answer the question because it is not a question that has to be answered. People should not need to demonstrate that a behavior does anything “good” before they do it. Or, to state it differently, the lack of ‘good’ qualities is not sufficient justification to prohibit a behavior.
I think ** Sua** had answered your other points, and I would just second what was said.
I would add that I don’t think that Amsterdam is a good example of what would happen if drugs were legalized on a national level in the US. It is a bit like looking at Las Vegas and saying that all US cities would turn into “The Strip” if gambling were allowed.
ummmm: what “redeeming qualities” does alcohol have, then? It’s quite addictive, and has definitely ruined more lives than any illegal drug. What’s the difference between getting plastered and getting high?
For that matter, what redeeming qualities does Tobacco have? It doesn’t even give you a high (after the first few times), it just addicts you and eventually kills you.
Sua: I don’t think straight economic arguments would necessarily be applicable here; not everybody is going to try to rationally maximize their consumption of drugs. I’m inclined towards the belief that it will spike temporarily, and then drop. It’s likely that people will try it at first, but that period will eventually die down when other factors intervene. Even with drugs now illegal, those who can get drugs don’t always bother because of the problems involved in it and the danger of getting addicted. Whether the drug is fashionable or not can even make a difference; drug use moves in cycles. There would also be the evaporation of the “forbidden fruit” and “rebellion” of drug use as well, which would remove a significant psychological attraction for legalized drugs.
What we might see is that each drug becomes somewhat more common, but that the same day-to-day concerns that limit the use of intoxicants now would limit them in the future, with only the types of intoxicants and the legal repercussions changed. Remember that we have already legalized what is probably the most addictive substance of all: Nicotine. As not everybody smokes, I doubt that everybody would use heroin either. You’d get some addicts, but treatment would be less stigmatized and people would take that into consideration before they used… just like with Nicotine and Alcohol now.
Nope. I haven’t condoned the current system at all. In fact, I have said that I don’t believe jailing addicts is the answer. I just don’t think legalizing drugs is a step in the right direction.
**
**
There isn’t a difference. Read my other posts and you’ll see that I have lumped tobacco and alcohol in with drugs. Answering this question helps prove my point.
**
**
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I truly believe a decision as big as this, with ramifications as big as these needs to be examined from this perspective (as well as from yours). I really am trying to see all sides to this.
You have good facts here Sua. But I am concerned for people like my buddy. Making drugs more available will simply make more people addicted. I just don’t see that as a viable solution. A couple people have brought up how the current system did not prevent my friend’s death. They’re right. I am not condoning the current system. I think more funds in education and prevention is much better than using that to lock up users. I’d rather spend funds on the front end than waste them on the back end.
Well ummm… yeahh…, as we have concluded before I am not quite from the region, but close enough. In any case, the ‘experiments’ with legalization in Europe out of which the most extensive are Holland and Zurich, Switzerland have in some ways confirmed Sua’s points, although inconclusively. These adventures have suffered from being islands in an ocean of intolerance in some ways, generating setbacks such as an influx of non-local addicts seeking out these free havens and that the locations have been used as bases for trafficking into the more hard line regions of Europe. To be fair towards both sides; the jury is still out on the overall effect. The experience has however been positive enough for the European Commission to adopt an unexpectedly liberal stand in the fight against drugs.
In this resolution with appended explanation the Commission concludes that due to the wide cultural differences between countries in the Union, the fight against trafficking and drug related crime must remain a local issue carried through a concerted EU wide effort to crack down on the international aspect of drug crimes. They also advocate, nay demand from the member states that at least 50% of all moneys invested in drug prevention be put to information and rehabilitation. As always our parliament takes a very sensible golden middle way :rolleyes: accepting and respecting the sovereignty of the member states, while subtly asserting a point. Namely that the experiences made by decriminalizing drug possession and use have so far proven positive and that there seems to be no denying its efficiency. The statistics from Holland indicate that during in the period of drug decriminalization there has been no abnormal change, neither in addiction rates nor in criminality overall while violent crimes and drug related crimes* have decreased. Yet the issue remains a political hot potato in Europe, but lately the hard line states like Sweden have not been successful with their agenda.
For a far more well versed and full argument I might suggest this article which is a pretty well researched and cited response to an editorial from October 18, 1996, in the International Herald Tribune by Joseph A. Califano, Jr. head of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, in which he proposed that the Dutch system would be harmful to America. The here cited article originally appeared in The International Journal on Drug Policy, the official journal of The International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA).
IMHO the redeeming qualities of drugs are not an important part of this debate. Drugs are for better or worse a part of our culture and they have been part of human culture since time immemorial. To deny the human species the use of recreational, mind expanding or just plain destructive use of stimulants is like denying our nature. That in and of itself is IMHO a redeeming quality. Further to that one could argue that much of our creative, religious, scientific and philosophical heritage would not have been possible or at least very improbable without the presence and in some cases even the active use of a wide variety of stimulants and recreational drugs. The point as far as I can see is; how does then society deal with the negative flipside of that coin. I other words; how do we protect ourselves, our brothers and our sisters from the inherent dangers of overindulging in the nature of being human.
Sparc
*The Dutch have not legalized drugs per se but have adopted a lenient judicial and penal attitude leading to a partial de facto legalization.
My opinion, in short, is that why should the government deny people the use of recreational drugs. Look what happened during Prohibition? It should analyze the risks and tell people what those risks are. And if they decide to take that risk, that should be their own right.
Of course, to solidify that… I’d eliminate drug treatment by the government. If you OD, we’ll help revive you, but if you want to get off it, that is your own cross to bear, since you made the choice in the first place :D.
I’ve been reading along and found the argument that “if you legalize drugs then crime will go down” to be a poor argument.
Yes if drugs are legalized then yes you will have no more drug charges.
But, if you legalized drugs other crimes are sure to go up.
For instance in 1998 an estimated 61,000 convicted jail inmates said they had committed their offense to get money for drugs. Of convicted property and drug offenders, about 1 in 4 had committed their crimes to get money for drugs. A higher percentage of drug offenders in 1996 (24%) than in 1989 (14%) were in jail for a crime committed to raise money for drugs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dcf.pdf
This won’t change if drugs are legalized.
Also according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 1999, there were 7.4 million violent victimizations of residents’ age 12 or older. About 28% of the victims of violence reported that the offender was using drugs, alone or in combination with alcohol. About 1.2 million violent crimes occurred each year in which victims were certain that the offender had been drinking. For about 1 in 4 of these violent victimizations involving alcohol use by the offender, the offender was also using drugs at the time of the offense. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dcf.pdf
Among jail inmates in 1989 — drugs at the time of their offense
• 44% used drugs in the month before the offense
• 30% used drugs daily in the month before the offense
• 27% used drugs at the time of the offense.
Jail inmates convicted of drug offenses most frequently reported having been under the influence of (39%), followed by convicted burglars (38%) and robbers (36%). Jail inmates convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) (12%), assault (14%), and homicide (18%) were the least likely to report having been
under the influence of drugs at the time of the offense.
Well unless these statistics are wrong the only stats that will go down are the arrests and convictions for drugs. And our society will be in no better position than where we are at right now, in fact it will be worse off. The stats speak for themselves.
Since you have been reading along you might want to attack the proponents stats and sources - I note only Sua’s and my own amongst others. You summarily dismiss ours and serve us a new set of stats, which I for that matter see no immediate reason to question the veracity of… but, they do not speak for themselves.
Stats never speak for themselves. Your argument seems to boil down to that nothing will change save that fewer people will go to prison on drug charges and you posit, without cites that crime would likely go up. Coming from that arbitrary standpoint you take the stats you provide and simply count backwards.
One: not satisfactory as an argument since it does not take into account any of the social and economical changes that legalization implicitly entails.
Two: simply not well founded since it completely ignores the experiences already made with decriminalization pointing at a flaw in your argument.
This thread so far has seen a number of posts that posit the opposite of your point with cites.
If drugs were legal they would be much, much cheaper. Therefore less people would need to commit crimes to get the money to buy them.
Your other statistics have nothing to do with drug related crime. Just because someone used drugs at some point before they committed a crime does not have anything to do with why they committed the crime. Also, the fact that drugs are illegal makes drug users criminals to begin with, so they have a better chance of getting caught up in gangs or becoming friends with other criminals, which then increases the chances that they will commit a crime.
I wasn’t dismissing your stats. I said that I agree that crime will go down if you legalize drugs, but the crime you are talking about is buying, selling, making, etc. of drugs. That’s a given that crime will go down.
Quote from Sua
Yes if drugs are legalized all the above go home. Granted, but that still doesn’t address what happens when people are under the influence.
I believe people do have the right in a sense to do what they want, but when their choices affect other people, (i.e. crime), then the rights of the victim are being taken away.
Just because the price will go down won’t lower the crime rate. Alcohol and Cigs are both legal and people still steal to feed there craving. It’s also not like drugs are that expensive now. Any one can buy it and get it. When you’re addicted it doesn’t matter how much money you have or how cheap the drug is, at some point need for a fix will exceed your bankroll.
My uncle was a Millionaire and had a very successful business and ended up drinking it and sniffing it away. He had plenty of money, but it didn’t last long. If drugs were cheaper he might have lasted a year more, big accomplishment.
I’ll try to address more later. I didn’t get to clarify as much as I wanted and I am fully expecting getting taken to town on this point!