“You simply do not have the right to an environment where everything you don’t approve of is forbidden.”
Very well put.
except of course, the view of the anti legalization folks is that it isn’t merely a question of what I don’t approve of, but of safety and security concerns. whenever we comingle in a society, there’s balances made between individual liberties and group issues. So, to make your point you need to argue about the issues of safety, and other public concerns.
Addiction is a social problem but, not one that prohibition lends itself to fixing very well. One way in which the COLLECTIVE SOCIETAL cost of addiction could be alleviated is by increasing access and decreasing cost of the elicit substance. If a crack-head (nothing demeaning about that term now that cocaine is as legitimate as cognac) could by a dime bag for 25 cents, he could smoke his way into an early grave possibly before exhausting all his savings and property. Sure it doesn’t make that much difference to him in the end. But, if he isn’t outside begging, mugging people or knocking over convenience stores; then society as a whole has been spared much trouble. Basically I am resting on the assumption that an addict WILL destroy themselves, am making my peace with that as their choice, and wish to reduce the damage to those sharing society with said addict as much as is possible.
The creeps, more accurately. You seem incapable of pleasant conversation. Mangetout, who I think is a decent sort, has already expressed dismay at the hostility in this thread, and that hostility is coming from you. It is utterly unnecessary and counterproductive.
I do hope you take this admonition to heart. What do you gain from alienating both those you agree with you and those who disagree with you?
Sua
I used to live in a neighborhood that was ground zero of drug activity. The neighborhood deteriorated so badly with the gangs, the addicts in the street assaulting people, those who lost their homes because of drug use, the landlords who were so high that they couldn’t repair the houses they own, and mothers and fathers who couldn’t feed their children. The only way kids can find work are either hustling with a pusher, or, for girls, taking tricks for drugs and cash. Also, I had relatives who suffered from drug addiction, and I had to suffer the consequences along with them. The neighborhood didn’t improve with legalizing drugs, but with a concerted effort on part of the police and the community to drive the drug activity out of the parks, the schools and the streets. Spend an hour of my life when I was young, and you will not go around touting legalization.
How did juveniles in your neighborhood become registered distributors of cocaine (or was it hashish or heroine?)? Besides, why would someone patron these girls as prostitues when there were available state regulated brothels?
Oh, you mean elicit drug use and prostitution were ILLEGAL in that area.
With legalization of prostitution and various drugs already widely available (despite being prohibited) there will still be those who sell to minors and johns that prefer 15y/olds. But, the law enforcement and penal systems in place now could deal with that. As things are now, we have no hope of arresting/convicting/imprisoning all dealers/prostitues/users. There are powerfull and natural economic discentives to the worst effects of prostitution and drug use if both are legalized and regulated (not to mention the economic and law enforcement impact of turning the vice squad budgets into dealer/prostitute licensing revenues).
This case is not ubiquitous; as I have mentioned, the drugs flowed relatively free where I grew up and we had little crime as a result of drugs. Apart from, of course, people being busted for having drugs.
Every time a local dealer got busted, you’d better be prepared to shell out extra cash for the same thing. The economics of “bad” monopolies and oligopolies doesn’t change just because its a black market; if anything, being a black market exacerbates the undesirable effects. After all, who are you going to complain to about unfair business practices?
Summary of popular drugs in my area (no longer, as I’ve moved) in order of my perceived popularity:
Pot (of course)
LSD, both paper and gel
Opium, which was popular in phases (perhaps due to supply)
Cocaine
Ecstacy
Ketamine (special K)
And probably a few others that I don’t know about. You can only know so many people, after all.
A very close friend of mine was arrested for dealing LSD; he sold two sheets (200 hits) to an undercover cop. He never did any of the “typical” drug dealer things. He didn’t carry weapons. None of his “customers” were criminals. People came to him, he never had to “push.”
I knew three people who dealt marijuana. Similar traits also didn’t apply to them; they were only criminals in that they sold and possessed (and used) drugs.
Before I left I know the town was getting into high gear over busting people over “the epidemic of drugs ‘spreading’ into the suburbs.” It was, and is, a load of shit (in so far as it applied to this community). A lot of people’s lives were ruined because of nothing other than the law.
I will never support drug bans for analogous reasons to yours, capacitor.
Something I wanted to add to this is a paraphrased (as close as can be remembered) quote from the LSD dealer who went to prison, a felon, now unable to vote to legalize drugs (how convenient).
One batch of LSD costs $5000 in good lab equipment (can’t make LSD in the bathtub like meth) and at least 6 months in labor (if one grows and harvests ergot from rye which is safest but not absolutely necessary). Add to that about 500-1000 dollars in assorted chemicals (hich is unlikely; most would probably be stolen when possible to avoid a paper trail). These last chemicals wouldn’t be obtained until the absolute last second. Final “real” labor (not counting growing/harvesting) is about three days.
This can make about 4 grams of pure LSD, which amounts to 40,000 hits. Street value of 40,000 hits of LSD is $200,000. Realistically the producer would sell all these hits in liquid form to a sub-processor for a cool $50,000, or make blotter and sell them in bulk sheets for about $100 a sheet which would still make the producer $40,000.
In other words, at least for LSD, the drug is about 85% profit for the first run, and anyhere from 97.5% profit to 100% for following batches. The temptation for anyone who actually has the means must be overwhelming, and since most chemicals can either be easily synthesized or legally obtained for any number of regular industries, and the most difficult precursor (lysergic acid) itself can be harvested (if not legally purchased, but that is heavily regulated and must be accounted for 100%) I find that LSD is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to successfully contain.
The case is even more futile for the manufacture of methamphetines. The precursor chemicals are everywhere and the regulated chemicals are easily synthesized or a different method of manufacture exists to bypass them altogether (with the exception of phenylacetone which must be made or otherwise obtained). The cost of chemicals versus the quantities of drugs obtained is negligible (most stuff can be found at the hardware store for god’s sake). Meth (including MDA and MDMA and other designer analogs of meth) manufacture is very simple (don’t need to be a chemist to make it if you have the directions), and the precursor chemicals are so useful for all other industries that it, as well, is for all intents and purposes impossible to eliminate.
The “problem” of meth is even more pronounced because one of the quickest and easiest (but not the cheapest) methods of producing it involves using, as a precursor, ephedrine, or pseudoephedrine. Common sources of these? Dexatrim, Sudafed, some inhalers, and any number of OTC drugs used for colds and dieting.
Unlike other things which we would like to be illegal (slavery, monopolies, blah blah blah) it is virtually impossible to eliminate these two very popular drugs. They can be made quickly, cheaply, and sold for a huge profit even at a rather modest price. As far as marijuana goes, it is a seeded plant for god’s sake. I can’t see it possible to eliminate this plant at all so long as people exist with a desire to plant it. Instead, the tack we must take is to stop creating criminals and deal with the uses of drugs through education, rehabilitation for those who desire to quit, and other forms of legislated responsibility. No other tack has a hope of working without draconian laws restricting the freedom of people and busineses (which use these chemicals).
[sub]Source for data:
Practical LSD Manufacture copyright 1997
Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture: Fourth Edition copyright 1996[/sub]
I suppose for the sake of completeness I should mention that these precursors really only apply (for “bathtub” creation) for strict Meth or CAT. To make MDA or MDMA different precursors are required. MDMA can be made indirectly from plant sources or more directly from aromatic oils. MDA is admittedly difficult if one doesn’t work in the proper industry (of all things, prefume manufacture).
I am unaware of the method of manufacture of other drugs, so I cannot say how easy or difficult they are to enforce a ban on. I do know that most drugs do have plant sources as a primary means of obtaining precursors, so I sould guess that similar difficulties apply to almost all of them. Offhand I am not aware of any drug which is any more difficult to make than LSD or MDA (and I’ve never known a person who has used MDA, or even had heard of someone who had “knew a dude who had it.” ;))
I should note that there is, in fact, one way to help stop drug manufacture: make information on processing drugs illegal (this was recently tried, in fact, but the bill died in congress). I would consider such a tactic “draconian” for the record.
eris, you lived in a different would than I did. In the suburbs, it is easy to cover up the effects of drug use. Not so in the inner city. The proliferation of drug use almost destroyed it.
Not to mention as hard to enforce, if not harder, than the existing drug laws. After all, child pornography is illegal, but anyone who wants it can probably find it on the internet without serious difficulty.
capacitor, I’ve lived in both the suburbs and an open-air drug market. Nothing wakes you up faster in the morning then the crunch of crack vials underfoot. The way my neighborhood got cleaned up wasn’t the cops, but instead a cult with a disturbingly effective vigilante organization.
I submit that, while the proliferation of drug use certainly greatly harmed your (and my) neighborhoods, the real damage was done by cost of illegal drugs, which led to both an incentive to violence to pushers to protect their profits, and necessitating property crime, poverty, etc., in those addicted. One of the points of legalization is to push the prices down, so that the incentive for drug-related crime is greatly lessened.
Drug gangs are driven by the profits to be made from drugs. Eliminate the profits by making drugs legal, and drug gangs lose both their raison d’etre and their ability to purchase at least their more expensive weaponry.
Legalization will greatly lessen the number of people losing their homes, as considerably less of their money will go to drugs (with prices lowered). Legalization will not likely affect landlords too high to repair their properties. Cheaper legal drugs will at least put more money in the pockets of parents, so they can feed their kids, though it certainly won’t make them better parents.
With no pushers, kids won’t be hustlers - there would be nothing to hustle, as drugs wouldn’t be sold on the street, but under whatever system the government enacts. No idea as to the impact on prostitution.
Sua
Sua:
I’m back! Alright, you and everyone else in the pro-drugs boat haven’t addressed the 10-15% who wouldn’t be able to control their habit.
But Sua, what happens when that 10-15% stop going to work because they are high all the time, due to addiction? Then, they may lose their jobs, and won’t be able to afford the $.10 hit of crack or whatever… not to mention the huge negative impact it will have on that individual’s family.
Legalization = encouragement. Drugs have a destructive impact on the user’s health, the user’s family, and society in general (even after subtracting the “illegal” implications). I cannot see how I could support that. I’m not worried though. It will never happen anyway.
Well, I’m sure we run with different crowds.
SuaSponte:
I think I have some idea: With drug prices at a small fraction of their current value, many users who currently must support their drug habits via prostitution would no longer need to do so, which may result in a significant drop in STD transmission.
Ah yes, the 10-15% (depending on the drug, more accurately, the 5-35%) who become dependent.
To answer your direct question first. Perhaps under a legalized drug system, some people will still have to turn to crime to support their habit (I don’t think very many - a large proportion of addicts are functional - they aren’t “high all the time.” Just think of how many famous people check themselves into rehab for alcohol/pain kill dependence. They were working all that time they were addicted.). Say said unemployed person must steal enough to support a $25/week addiction, as opposed to the $500/week before legalization. That’ one car they break into in a week to steal the stereo, as opposed to 20 before. The numbers of such property crime will go down.
But, let’s get to the meat. More people will try drugs, and therefore more will become addicted, after legalization. I have two answers. First, to be cold-hearted, why should the afflictions of 10-15% of potential users be considered more important than the rights of the 85-90% who won’t become addicted? That is hardly a fair solution.
But, you say, it’s just drugs. It’s a recreational activity, so the rights of the 85-90% aren’t all that important in this case. Try making that argument when you take away the farmer’s beer after a long day at work, because 8-10% of alcohol users become dependent. Try it when you confiscate the guns of a collector because X% use guns for criminal activity. Try it when you ban sports cars because they are recreational only, and X% use them to drag race. Excluding prostitution, we don’t consider the bad habits of a minority to be reason to prohibit the recreational activities of a majority (though we tried it with alcohol and Prohibition, and found out it didn’t work). Why should drugs be different?
The second argument is that criminalization inhibits effective policies for addiction, on many levels. 1) Criminalization causes increased purity and efficacy of drugs. If it is risky to purchase the substance, you want more bang for your buck. As an example, during Prohibition, sales of beer plummeted, but sales of hard alcohol rose exponentially. Increased purity leads to both increased ODs and increased risks of dependence. 2) with drugs illegal, it is more difficult to break the cycle of dependency before the use reaches bottom. A person in the beginning stages of dependency in a criminalization regime is less likely to come forward and seek help, for fear of arrest/stigma, before he/she crashes out and help is forced upon him/her, by the courts, etc. That person can do a lot more damage on the way down. 3) Under criminalization, governments cannot preach moderation. They can’t put special stigma/penalties on selling to kids, they can’t do a “Truth” advertising campaign, a la cigarettes.
Finally, you are wrong if you believe legalization will never happen. It’s happening already. Medical marijuana is but a foot in the door. Decriminalization has occurred not only in Holland, but in England, Switzerland, and Belgium. I would lay good money that marijuana is at least decriminalized within the next 20 years in the U.S. I would put less money on cocaine, and very little on heroin.
Sua
OK.
You made the statement that a majority of the younger crowd agree with drug prohibition.
I have stated just an observation, so it isn’t really scientific or anything. Your statement may or may not be backed by a study.
Do you have any support for your belief that the younger crowd supports prohibition.
I can see the argument that it is illegal so obviously a majority supports it, but that hardly covers the real opinion of our sub-par voter turnout. If you have something that supports this I would be very interested because as you pointed out we do run in different circles.
If you want to some legalize drugs, fine. I don’t really care if some idiot takes a bong hit in his basement. The problems are:
-
As has already been stated, when some weedhead decides to go to “Lazer Floyd” and takes a hit before he gets in the car.
-
When some coke head ends up on the steps of a hospital for ODing and the hospital/public pays the bill. Or some deserving patient has to wait while the doctors treat some heroin user who got AIDS.
-
When some guy is too busy spending his welfare checks on pot to bother seeking employment. Once again the state pays the bill.
-
The added police needed to enforce public highness laws. Someone said that it would “even out” because we’d essential end the war on drugs. I disagree. Instead it would redirect the police presence into the life’s of law abiding citizens, whereas it was formerly concentrated on outlaws.
So my suggestions are, if you want it legalized, go vote for a candidate who will do it. Until then, live with it. Drug legalization is not a major social concern.
Qwerty, every problem you mention already exists, and in much greater amount than all currently illegal drugs could cause, because of a substance known as “alcohol”. The only exception is the heroin/AIDS issue, and for that we can substitute “the idiot who got AIDS because he insisted on ‘barebacking’”. And, of course, the primary reason heroin users get AIDS is because hypodermic needles are also illegal, causing users to share needles and therefore spread disease.
We already have a massive drugs problem in this country - alcohol and nicotine. The social costs are atrocious, and mimic in almost all respects the social costs other drugs will cause if legalized, only vastly amplified. Our society seems to have survived them, and we have learned that Prohibition doesn’t work.
Sua.
Your entire argument is illogical with respect to keeping drugs illegal.
Response:
1: We already have laws that sanction intoxicated driving, why does making the drugs illegal make this problem go away? And, with real world examples of it having NO affect in making it go away, why do you think keeping the drug laws will eventually make this go away?
2: Real world examples of changing the laws show that addiction rates go down because of the focus on health interdiction and negative health related side effects go down, like AIDS, for the same reason. Not to mention needle sharing programs.
3: Causal arguments like this are logically invalid. There is no reason to believe that a person like this can’t get work for the simple fact there isn’t any to have. Or he is disabled. Or any number of reasons. And, there are millions of Americans who work and take drugs, by percentage many many many more than people who don’t work and take drugs, around 96% with unemployment at 4%, that the most apparent reason is that the person just doesn’t want to work. So, why does making drugs illegal make this person want to work? Again, the real world tells us that it does nothing to cahnge motivation.
4: This argument has so little bearing to reality that I am finding it hard to rationalize. How is that redirecting police enforcement is going to make them bother law abiding citizens more? You give no reason except the legalization of drugs, and there is absolutely no evidence of that at all, so what are you talking about?
QWERTY,
Have you actually read the previous postings in this thread? Every single one of your points has already been brought up by others, and answered authoritatively and at great length by such worthies as SuaSponte.
I’m not trying to shut down the debate here. It’s a good one and I’m enjoying it, but do any of you anti-legalization folks have anything new to say?