If the use of certain or all drugs is “decriminalized”, what is the status of trafficking in those substances?
Not trying to play devil’s advocate or anything. JC.
I have the same problem Dinsdale. See my modified position above. I though about this a lot last night, and I can see no way of decriminalizing drugs such as cocaine and heroin, without still maintaing the status qou. We’d still have to worry about trafficking and dealing(with it’s many established problems), which pure decriminalization doesn’t address.
So in absence of anything else I’m back to total legalization, unless someone can come up with a palatable alternative.
Excellent question. I’m still struggling with it, but:
To me, the excesses by DEA/Narcotics squads etc have added into the erosion of civil liberties. Their major incentives seem to be the large cash cow of ‘confiscation’ -perhaps if put confiscated drug $$ into drug education and treatment programs instead of back into the Narcotics squad coffers, their aim would be different? We could still do searches at the borders for incoming, etc, but this penny-ante 20$ buy on the street=conviction for dealing stuff would/should stop.
Frankly, they often know who does the high level drug dealing. They spend countless amounts of time and $$ to get them on drug charges, when perhaps they should pull a Capone and start focusing more on the money laundering aspect (I’d think it’d be easier to trace and track then the actual drugs - their excuse for not getting the big dealers on the drug part is 'cause of the use of mules etc., but trust me, the big time dealers are actually recieving and spending the cash.)
Disband the narcotics squads - reallocate their time to looking into other crimes (as an aside - I once attempted to file a police report where some one had written nearly $12,000 in bad checks and was told that it’d take 2 years before they’d get to investigate the case. And this is one where the purpetrator was known, and I was offering to turn over nearly all the evidence necessary. Ultimately the bank refused to press charges).
how’s that for a start?
Yeah, but I doubt that most users would even bother. Doesn’t seem to work too well for tobacco, alcohol or fatty foods.
Thanks. My thoughts exactly.
It is much much harder to OD on alchohol than heroin. Your body will start vomiting up the alchohol in an attempt to clean the system. It can’t vomit heroin out of the blood stream after it has been ingested for all I know. How can it get rid of cocaine? Sneeze?
Tobacco is just about impossible to OD on in one sitting. Although, I can’t be totally sure. Never seen anyone try it though.
Away from comp for a day and wow…
Alot of good points have been made but I have seen many concerns I didnt think were really complicated (maybe I missed something)
quote:
I would imagine the penalties would be similar to those for transporting bulk alcohol and or cigarettes for evading taxation on them.
I would also imagine you would see a dramatic increase in the number of employers who drug test. IMHO it would and should still be illegal to drive under the influence of these things, like alcohol now. MAybe even increase the penalties further to try and encourage “more responsible use” (please dont laugh I know it isnt the best answer) You would most likely also see things like increased health care premiums for companies that do not drug test. Schools would still prohibit it on campus, etc, etc.
Homegrown? Legal I would think. I make mead and hard cider at home I can legally make 100 gallons a year( i make like 15). If you grow a little pot, I would imagine they would set a “beyond personal use level”. If you exceeded that then you would need to apply for a permit for commercial manufacture (I believe its only like $500/yr for up to 10,000 us gallons a year in beer or wine) then you could grow all you wanted and then some…legally. Now something like meth manufacturing (dangerous) you would need permits for just like any haz mat type business. Even with permits and inspection fees a well planned and run business will be far more efficent than any guy with a little chem lab in his garage.
I agree that widespread acceptance would be a long time in coming and I’m sure addicts would still be looked down on like they are today.
I disagree with those who think price would be an issue for cheaper black market materials. Even with some stiff taxes lets say $6 US for a pack of 20 MJ smokes. 30 cents each? Vs the $1-$2 quoted earlier. I dont see how anyone is going to seriously undercut commercial manufacturing.
I’m quite sure you would see usage go up especially on MJ products and probably some stimulants, but with that would be increased tax base (although I agree with you dennison it wouldnt be enough to offset much of our taxes.
BATF would most likely turn to thr tax enforcement aspect of their job and trafficking and or dealing would disappear as crimes.
[ex-EMT steps on soapbox]
Alcohol poisoning is serious and easy to do with hard alcohol. Most cases i saw involved mainly minors who didnt know just how powerful a 375ml bottle of Jack Daniels was. I think they can throw you on dyalisis to try and strip some of it out of your blood but thats tough on your system too.
Heroin is an easy fix, Narcan/Naloxone carried by damn near every paramedic in the country will strip the heroin out of your system in about a minute. People are usually pissed because you messed up their high (even though you just saved their life)
Cocaine I’m not sure if there is a drug fix for, any medics and or medical folk wo know more on this?
[ex-EMT steps off soapbox]
How do you figure that? The wanton demonization of illicit drug users, caused by none other than the war on drugs, is probably responsible for most unnecessary drug testing(by which I mean testing that serves no function except to regulate what people do in their spare time). After all, there are few, if any, jobs which forbid their employees from drinking or smoking on one’s own time. (Alcoholism is actually recognised as a disability inder limited circumstances; it’s illegal to fire someone for alcoholism unless he/she causes harm to the company because of it.)
Drugs are used to reverse tachycardia,the killer effect of cocaine on the heart. Sympathetalytics can slow things down a bit. Vomiting is a defense against alcohol or other types of poisoning, but if your CNS is depressed enough, you won’t be able to throw up. Your liver metabolizes toxins like alcohol and cocaine and chocolate and Diet Coke. It will eventually, if not too badly damaged, synthesize what ever you’ve ingested, legal or not. Your liver is an equal opportunity clearance center in a lot of ways.
** A disclaimer **
-
I entered the thread and only read the first few posts.
-
I am currently working to rid my life of most, if not all, of the substances mentioned. Trust me. Been there, done that.
-
This will sound like the Pit.
-------------------------------------------
You fucking assholes. You smoke your pot and snort your coke and think nothing will happen to you. You feel good. You giggle your ass off. And there is no problem. But there will be.
The worst thing about the “Let’s make drugs legal” group is the hypocrisy. For instance, they can’t think of a legitimate reason to make pot legal so they come up with the idea of hemp. Hemp can give us fuel for our cars and fibers for our clothes. Gimme a f*cking break. The NORML people would gain a lot more legitimacy if they just admitted they want to smoke pot to sit around and giggle, as opposed to some grand society bullshit.
But let’s give credit where credit is due. Pot is only psychologically addictive. HEY DUMBASS!!! The fact that it is addictive at all means that you have succumbed to the drug. What, its ok that only your brain is addicted makes it ok? The only reason any sane person would buy that is if their brain is already clogged with so much bong resin that the basic notions of self-esteem and improvement are long gone.
Then there’s the physically addictive ones. The cocaines, the opiates, the psychedelics, the alcohols. You want to draw a line there because those are the bad drugs. Alcohol has been a part of the human experience since it’s beginning, and, I admit, will be hard to supplant. But why do you insist on using this fact to try and force other drugs on the rest of us.
What’s that? I don’t hafta do those drugs? Oh really? Do I hafta pay for your re-hab? Do I hafta pay for the days you take off work? Do I hafta pay for the half-ass job you do when you finally do show up for work? Do I hafta pay for you to have a place to live? But you don’t care about the people who hafta actually work to pick up your slack. You’re all about slack. You life is slack.
So fuck you druggies. I have no time for you. You are the scum of the earth, but you don’t care. In fact, you relish your impotence and, in the process of justifying your pitiful existence, you attempt to drag others down with you in a pathetic attempt to pull others into your personal hell.
GROW UP DRUGGIES!!! QUIT THROWING YOUR LIFE AWAY A BOWL AT A TIME! GET OVER IT, JUST LIKE YOU SAY EVERYONE DOES.
Yes, and perhaps you should have posted it there. I link to this would have sufficed.
To be honest, your utter lack of sympathy or understanding (in fact, your open hostility) towards anyone with a drug problem – as well as your apparent hatred for anyone who doesn’t think it’s a good idea to put drug addicts in jail – is enough to cast aspersions on your claim to be in recovery. At the least, I can hardly imagine anyone involved with AA or NA to have this kind of hatred for users; get yourself to a meeting.
If you want to actually address the arguments and issues involved, then maybe we can talk . . . about my experience with drugs, my family’s (extensive) experience, and, you know, facts.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RoboDude *
**
I hardly think that’s an accurate assessment.
Companies test for drugs because they recognize that certain drugs can seriously impair work performance. They want some assurance that their employees aren’t hooked on the stuff, or that they’re not heading down that path. If an employee is addicted, then there is a serious chance that this person will take drugs on the job as well as during his spare time. They also don’t want employees who will spend their working hours craving their next drug fix, instead of concentrating on their jobs.
There’s also the risk that a company will be implicated if an employee is caught carrying drugs on company premises. I’m sure this isn’t the primary concern, but it’s a concern nonetheless.
In other words, companies aren’t just doing this because they want to pry into your personal life. Rather, their ultimate purpose is to minimize the risk that an employee’s productivity will bomb out due to drug abuse.
Hiya Cyn thanks for the medical info!
So who do you think is ok to be drunk, stoned, or other wise impaired at work? The bank employee whos processing your deposit? Just about everyone out there doing a job does something that:
requires some kind of concentration or mental focus
-or-
uses sharp and or heavy tools often powered
-or-
works with materials which may be dangerous if improperly handled
-or-
operates heavy equipment or vehicles
please give me one occupation that you interact with in some need that would not be negatively affected by that person being impaired by drug and or alcohol abuse.
Check out your company policy manual, if its in there they can probably fire you for it. When you sign your little “I have read and understand” statement and it says “they will terminate you if you are found to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs”
As I understand it they dont get to fire you if you come forward and ask for time off etc to deal with your problem, if the company has to make the first step its probably already too late. At least that has been the case in
examples I have seen.
Comitted to original Cyn 
I met a couple of people who spoke like JamesCarroll in rehab.
Some people “hafta” think like this to get off drugs.
That’s cool, James. Do what you gotta do.
But there’s no evidence that criminalization effectively addresses the drug problem. Quite the contrary.
I’m ready to try something a little less extreme. And deadly. It’s time to put the problem to the medical establishment where it beolngs.
Peace,
mangeorge
Re: drug tests, etc.
Yes, I’m sure the motivation for employee drug tests is that companies assume a drug addict will be less productive than a non-drug addict. There are certain problems, however.
An employee whose urine tests positive for alcohol 10 times out of 10 will in all likelihood be unpunished if his work is not considered to be slipping. An excellent employee who tests positive for heroin once will, at the least, be forced into treatment. I’m not saying that that’s a bad thing – the more people getting help, the better – but it shows a certain amount of paranoia on the part of the typical employer. Rare or not, there is such a thing as a functioning drug addict, and there is such a thing as a recreational user. If drug addicts are considered to be poor job prospects, it is in large measure because they are frequently denied jobs based soley on their addiction. Consequently, more and more addicts live a life of poverty, with decreasing health and an increasing number of run-ins with the laws. Consequently, they are seen as more wretched and less productive (“they can’t even hold down their jobs!”). Consequently, they get less work. Consequently, drug addiction is seen as a worse and worse phenomenon, leading to more and stricter drug laws, leading to worse conditions of life for addicts, etc. etc. etc. It’s a vicious cycle.
Yes, the drugs and the addiction are horrible things in and of themselves. But the drug laws, and the propoganda of the war on drugs, make the situation infinitely worse.
a couple of thoughts:
- Robo - another reason (very practical) employers conduct drug screening, is that they can get a decrease in their worker’s comp insurance. This can mean big bucks.
James Carrol I can appreciate your new found sobriety, and congrads on that. However, it’s considered bad form to come into an existing thread and ‘only read the first couple of posts’ before you offer up your opinion. It’s also considered very bad form to use the language and tone you did in your post, in any forum here except the pit. Up until your post, the debate here was a balanced and polite one. People disagreed, offered their opinions, cites to back them up, reasoned arguments. In Other Words, they were debating.
Had you read further into the thread you would have found that some of the posters were advocating legalization, some were advocating decriminalization, and other variations. Some of us (gasp), aren’t druggies, and I frankly resent accusations of that sort - especially since you can offer no proof. And, specifically, some of the posters on this thread are self admitted former users, sober a number of years. Others have not stated for the record if they personally use or not.
In any event, one excellent piece of advice I can offer you, is to use the “preview” your post option. You can: look for code problems, fix spelling errors, and add/remove words if you find that you aren’t expressing your intent as well as you’d hoped. Some of the debates here get heated, because they’re on topics we care about deeply. I often have modified my post before submission, after I noted ‘gee, that comes off more rudely than I intended’.
Perhaps you should try it.
I would predict that if decriminalization/legalization does lead to an increase in drug testing, it will at least be the right kind of drug testing - the kind that tests present intoxication, like a breathalyzer.
If alcohol and other drugs are on the same level, it’ll be hard to justify firing someone for smoking pot two weekends ago, when many other employees drink alcohol every night without penalty.
JamesCarroll, both your language and your tone are inappropriate for this forum. If you wish to rant, scream, cuss, and generally throw a temper tantrum, take it to the Pit. That’s why we keep the Pit around.
This is an official warning.
Lynn
Administrator
For the Straight Dope
Thanks for filling me in on that. I learn something new every day. The point that I was trying to make is that your body has natural resistances to alchohol poisoning, due do it’s method of ingestion. Your body needs no outside chemicals or machines to make a first attempt at ridding itself of poison.
I now see that a heroin OD can be countered. However, it must be done with outside chemicals. If someone were shooting heroin and had an OD, it would be extremely hard for that person to get the drugs needed into their body, because they would be having NVD in addition to all sorts of other nasty stuff.
You would need someone else to administer the drug counter. On the other hand, with too much alchohol, you sometimes only need someone to hold your hair back while you puke.
I was operating under the assumption that OD = life thretening emergency. I actually learned a lot more myself after talking to my girlfriend (much wiser in the ways of medicine than I)
Committed to original “Cyn”