Legalising drug use

[Charlie_Tan]

SuaSponte:
No, most drugaddicts are not part of the junkie stereotype, but I still claim, that just because a drug is widely available, this does not create an addict.
In Sweden, about 20% of the population smoke on a regular basis, I think the same numbers go for the US. Alcohol is widely available and not every person over 25 is an alcoholic, not even a fraction of the 90% who use alcohol. Why do some people get addicted, while others don’t? Why can some people keep drinking beer, as if it was pop, and not get addicted (of course the alcohol will damage the body, but we’re talking addiction here).
Yes there is a physiological aspect of it, but if that was the only issue, it would be easy to state why some people get addicted. The psycholigical factor is crucial.

Also, rich dopers seldom die from their addiction. They can afford clean needles and pure narcotics. It’s the poor SOB’s in the project that hurt and get sent to jail.
Drugs are made even more evil, for our policy and politics regarding them.

[scotth]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**scotth, I read the bit, and I found support for everything you said except for the assertion that new users were created in far fewer numbers.
To be fair, this wasn’t an experiment in legalization. The heroin wasn’t available at the clinic to non-users, but instead to people already addicted. So it wouldn’t have affected the numbers of new users (or new addicts) anyway.

Sua **

I would have put it as an experiment in decriminalization rather than legalization, I guess.

Perhaps the new user part was elsewhere. I will try to find it. In the mean time, the reason for fewer new users was the exodus of dealers from the area. A secondary reason is that with the dealers gone, it pretty much left “recuiting” of new users to established addicts. Even by their own statements, they are not exactly poster children to extoll the benefits of heroin use.

The main point of the cite was to show that (at least) one alternative to our system of prohibition has been discovered which achieves significant harm reduction, even in the case of evil heroin. I hope that point is well taken.

It also goes far to make clear in the minds of doubters (I am not putting you in this category) that there is a distinct difference between the danger inherent in the use of a substance and the danger added by the social status of it.

As you have pointed out, completely crushing the black market is very desirable. I am unsure the approach I cited would be sufficient and I may have to bow to your suggestion of complete legalization of even heroin.

This is still a good example that an alternative idea can bring large benefits in almost every category open to measure.

[scotth]

*Originally posted by Leaper *
**As another aside, why is it that I hear all the time about drunk driving cases in the news, but almost never about an accident caused by drug use? Surely it must occur… Do drugs generally floor a person so much that he or she can’t even drive, or what…? **

This is a good question.

It does occur, but much less often. There are several reasons.

1. Alcohol use impairs performance more than most substances.
2. Nifty thing about alcohol, the nature of its impairment tends to hide itself from the user… i.e. Most other substances leave the user much more aware they are altered.
3. Many of the other substances are much more complete unto themselves. There is little need or desire to go do anything else while doing them.

Taken these together, there is generally less driving while impaired on other substances and the driving that does take place is not as risky as under alcohol.

In the specific:

1. Opiate users generally don’t desire to drive, but if they did, would probably be more capable.
2. Pot is much the same and is far less impairing for driving than alcohol.
3. LSD would be extraordinarily dangerous to drive under, but, at the same time the thought of attempting it is completely overwhelming to the user. Simply riding in a car like that is bewildering.
4. Cocaine could arguably improve driver performance at anything less than very high doses in much the same way caffeine can.

Another factor that is hard to judge, but is surely present, an officer often may have no way of knowing that a crash was caused by some substances. Thus, you would have some under-reporting by these causes.

Regardless,
I still strongly condemn any type of driving while impaired.

[sward]

Don’t do drugs. It could lead to other misbehavior, like dancing.

[Jdeforrest]

There are less accidents due to drugs because drugs make you drive slower than you think your driving.

God people, didn’t anyone watch Black Sheep?

[ummm.yeahh]

*Originally posted by Jdeforrest *
**There are less accidents due to drugs because drugs make you drive slower than you think your driving.

God people, didn’t anyone watch Black Sheep? **

Best point I’ve heard so far! would Nitros Oxide be considered a hard or soft drug?

[jjokinie]

Since Europe was mentioned in this debate, I can perhaps take part, knowing some facts about the
situation here.

I’m from Finland and I must tell you that the drug policy of my country comes right from the arsehole.
Or what do you think about this story : Man was picked up by the police because of drunkness.
They found 0.5 grams of hash in his pocket. He didn’t even know where from it got there ; most likely
one of his friends had given it. He was sued.
This man had no connections towards actual drugdealers,no previous crime record.
No further crime investigations would take place, ; no nothing but this lousy 0,5 grams.
Can you imagine how much does it cost for the society to set up a trial for 0,5 grams of hash !!!
Thank god he wasn’t destroyed completely because of this incident ; he was only fined about
300 FIM (something like 50 USD).

I’m 38yrs and I have used cannabis since I was 14 ,approximately once a week. My use of this ‘drug’ has
always been on this level and now ,after 24 years, I think it won’t grow. No side effects I have been able to detect.
No withdrawal, no unwillingness to take part in social life.
( OK, must confess that I get a sort of hangover next day ,emotionally sensitive, scary feeling, but NEVER
I wished to take another smoke to relieve that. )

Someone said that “if you give an inch, they will take a mile” : This is just ridiculous. Not one of the people
that I know has ever been even considering to move on to hard drugs. Reasons for starting to take hard stuff
are far beyond the so-called port theory (which, by the way, has not been able to prove yet).More likely
reasons come from social background. It’s quite natural to want to be a part of your community ;
if you live in a ghetto with crack-dealers all around, what can you do ??

Now, let’s check out the situation in Europe
There are countries like Netherlands, Portugal, Spain which allow free use of ‘soft’ drugs .
Portugal even did go further lately, allowing use of ANY drug, which I personally am not sure
was a good idea. They must have had very good reasons for that ('cause I don’t want to believe Portuguese
government is totally insane ! ), including ,as Sailor mentioned, freeeing officers to work on more important
issues and trying to control spreading of infectious diseases like HIV,various forms of Hepatite etc.
In some states of Germany you are allowed to possess up to 20 g.
In England it hasn’t been legalized yet, but if you get caught, no legal actions will follow. Same goes with
Italy, Switwerland, Belgium etc.
In general, you can say that cannabis has virtually been released in Europe. And no increase in
crime statistics has occurred. In fact, did you know that in Netherlands the percentage of young first-time users
is lower than in the States ?? Even though smoking in Holland is totally free and in States they have a
near zero-tolerance policy !!

In my opinion, Europe (except Finland and Sweden) is doing just fine.

    "  though we gave them an inch, they didn't WANT a mile.  "